On 2016-10-12 21:22, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:00:50PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Who cares about yaccs and
> > bisons?
>
> You're thinking small. Why not ship a pre-compiled ELF, built with some
> paid version of ICC (screw silly sods on AMD chips like me[1]).
I
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:00:50PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Martín Ferrari :
> >I had always understood that rebuilding from source was a hard
> >requirement. Is this not the case any more?
> >
> >I don't think that shipping a binary compiled upstream should be
> >allowed, so where
Quoting Martín Ferrari :
I had always understood that rebuilding from source was a hard
requirement. Is this not the case any more?
I don't think that shipping a binary compiled upstream should be
allowed, so where's the line drawn?
This is an interesting question indeed.
If it is allowed for
Andreas Barth writes:
> * Dimitri John Ledkov (x...@debian.org) [140429 23:34]:
>> of course not, do a bootstrap each time, or provide a separate
>> bootstrap package in the archive, such that other people can reproduce
>> the boostrap process. circular build-dependency on one-self is always
>> b
* Dimitri John Ledkov (x...@debian.org) [140429 23:34]:
> On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
> >> for the Debian archi
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
>>> for the Debian ar
On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
>> for the Debian archive. The FTP master view of this are based on both
>> item 1 of the so
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
> for the Debian archive. The FTP master view of this are based on both
> item 1 of the social contract (Debian will remain 100% free) and item 2 of
&
Scott Kitterman writes:
> Recently there have been a number of questions about source
> requirements for the Debian archive. The FTP master view of this [is:]
> We consider source packages to be part of the Debian system and as
> such all files in source packages must come with the
9 matches
Mail list logo
