Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon Josefsson
* Package name: guile-fibers
Version : 1.3.1-1
Upstream Author : Andy Wingo, et al
* URL : https://github.com/wingo/fibers
* License : LGPLv3+
Programming Lang: Guile
Description : Guile library
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Francesco P. Lovergine"
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name : guile-commonmark
Version : 0.1.2
Upstream Contact: Erik Edrosa
* URL : https://github.com/OrangeShark/guile-commonmark
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Shriram Ravindranathan
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, s...@ters.dev
* Package name: guile-curl
Version : 0.9
Upstream Contact: Mike Gran
* URL : https://github.com/spk121/guile-curl
* License : GPL-3
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tommi Höynälänmaa
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, tommi.hoynalan...@iki.fi
* Package name: g-golf
* URL : https://www.gnu.org/software/g-golf/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Scheme
Description : Guile Object
Hi Andreas
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 05:15, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> guile-gnutls was uploaded almost a week ago to sid, but the unstable
> autobuilders seem to ignore it.
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-gnutls
>
> Is there anything I can do? The experiment
Good morning,
guile-gnutls was uploaded almost a week ago to sid, but the unstable
autobuilders seem to ignore it.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-gnutls
Is there anything I can do? The experimental uploads were picked up
seamlessly.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you
Package: wnpp
Owner: Vagrant Cascadian
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, vagr...@debian.org, l...@gnu.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-avahi
Version : 0.4.1
Upstream Contact: l...@gnu.org, guile-avahi-b...@nongnu.org
* URL : https
ke, 2022-06-15 kello 09:55 +0200, julien.pu...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> Let your new package migrate to testing, since it's that one which
> doesn't have the autoremoval issue?
>
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Guile 2.2 dependency issue
is solved in
#x27;m not sure I understand what you mean. The Guile 2.2 dependency
> issue is solved in the new package guile-cairo 1.11.2-5, which should
> not be autoremoved. The new package should migrate to testing in a
> few days.
>
The autoremoval from testing concerns the old package, whic
Le mercredi 15 juin 2022 à 10:29 +0300, Tommi Höynälänmaa a écrit :
>
> I recently received e-mail that package guile-cairo is to be
> autoremoved 2022-07-09. The reason is that it depended on guile 2.2.
> However, I made new version guile-cairo-1.11.2-5 that depends only on
>
Hello
I recently received e-mail that package guile-cairo is to be
autoremoved 2022-07-09. The reason is that it depended on guile 2.2.
However, I made new version guile-cairo-1.11.2-5 that depends only on
guile 3.0. What shall I do in order to cancel the autoremoval?
- Tommi Höynälänmaa
Package: wnpp
Owner: Diane Trout
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: elpa-geiser-guile
Version : 0.23.2-1
Upstream Author : Jose Antonio Ortega Ruiz (j...@gnu.org)
* URL or Web page : https://gitlab.com/emacs-geiser/guile/
* License : BSD-3-clause
Description : guile
Your message dated Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:39:57 +0200
with message-id <20200730103956.pbtrwx5z5vnl2...@percival.namespace.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#749647: make-guile: make-guile or make-noguile?
has caused the Debian Bug report #749647,
regarding make-guile: make-guile or make-noguile?
Package: wnpp
Owner: Vagrant Cascadian
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-git
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Amirouche Boubekki
* URL or Web page : https://gitlab.com/guile-git/guile-git/
* License : GPL-3+, LGPL-3+, GFDL-1.3+ (with exceptions), others
Package: wnpp
Owner: Vagrant Cascadian
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-ssh
Version : 0.11.3
Upstream Author : Artyom V. Poptsov
* URL or Web page : https://github.com/artyom-poptsov/guile-ssh/
* License : GPL-3+, Expat, LGPL-3+, and more!
Description
Package: wnpp
Owner: Vagrant Cascadian
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-sqlite3
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Andy Wingo
* URL or Web page : https://notabug.org/guile-sqlite3/guile-sqlite3
* License : LGPL-3+, GPL-3+
Description : guile bindings for
Package: wnpp
Owner: Vagrant Cascadian
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-gcrypt
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Christopher Allan Webber and others
* URL or Web page : https://notabug.org/cwebber/guile-gcrypt
* License : GPL-3+, Expat, GFDL-1.3+ (with exceptions
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: aiscm
Version:
Upstream Author: Jan Wedekind
* URL: http://wedesoft.github.io/aiscm/
* License: GPL-3+
Section: lisp
It builds those binary packages:
aiscm - Guile numerical arrays and tensor extension
AIscm is a Guile extension
Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
Control: retitle -1 make-guile should be priority: extra, not standard
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo wontfix
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:42:32AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > I believe this is the correct consensus that DDs have reached when
> >
t; Severity: normal
>>>
>>> Given how 'make' has priority Optional, while 'make-guile' is Standard,
>>> build-essential's Depends should probably be updated to match.
>>
>> I don't think that the guile interpreter in make is essentia
On 24 October 2014 15:23, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + wontfix moreinfo
>
> Am 21.09.2014 um 16:27 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
>> Package: build-essential
>> Version: 11.7
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Given how 'make' has priority O
Control: tags -1 + wontfix moreinfo
Am 21.09.2014 um 16:27 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
> Package: build-essential
> Version: 11.7
> Severity: normal
>
> Given how 'make' has priority Optional, while 'make-guile' is Standard,
> build-essential's Depe
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 749647 general
Bug #749647 [make-guile] make-guile: make-guile or make-noguile?
Bug reassigned from package 'make-guile' to 'general'.
No longer marked as found in versions make-dfsg/4.0-7.
Ignoring request to alte
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Wookey wrote:
> I'm not quite sure who actually controls these things
That would be the stable release team, the processes for uploads to
stable are documented here:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable
--
bye,
pabs
ht
er
this stuff, and this mechanism was created to deal with exactly this
problem (but in a sufficiently general way to be useful for other
things too).
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> Build-Depends:
>guile-2.0-dev
>
> Packagte: make
&g
On Wed, May 14 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I know I can't do that until Jess is released and dpkg 1.17.2 is
>> in stable.
>
> Is it acceptable to put off providing a guile-enabled make.deb until
> jessie+1 ?
Talking to various people I was convince
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:16:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: Guile language support in make"):
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> >I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
>> >support by default for all t
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 13:20:32 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (It's a shame that the dpkg developers didn't adopt my suggestion of
> [ ] for build-profiles, because that would have been
> backward-compatible with old tools.)
One of the reasons [0] it was not adopted was precisely because it is
not ba
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Guile language support in make"):
> Well, I was thinking of build profiles for that.
(Lesson for me: read the whole thread first.)
> I know I can't do that until Jess is released and dpkg 1.17.2 is
> in stable.
Is it accepta
Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: Guile language support in make"):
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
> >support by default for all the reasons you stated. We do similar things
> >with Emacs, which has a -
ary packages from the same source is trivial.
Thanks for all the pointers. I have used a combination of stuff
I found in the example to create a make-guile package, now in NEW
processing.
> Since it is installed on so many systems, I believe that a lean make
> package is still wo
On May 11, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
> and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
> unsolvable, but messy,
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 06:38:15PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would like to solicit the opinion of the developers about the
> value of adding Guile support to the default make package, at the
> expense of two smallish additional dependencies.
> http://blog.melski.ne
ependency on another
> language could cause significant problems.
Well, I was thinking of build profiles for that.
--8<---cut here---start->8---
Build-Depends:
guile-2.0-dev
Packagte: make
Build-Profiles: !withguile
Package: make-guile
oblems.
Oh, good point. Yeah, requiring Guile for a regular source package build
could make bootstrapping quite annoying.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 03:28 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >
> >> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
> >> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run ag
Russ Allbery wrote:
>Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
>> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
>> and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
&
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Building two binary packages from a single source seems hackish,
> since make and make-guile would require ./configure to be run again,
> and each target of the ./debin/rules might need cleanup/restart. Not
> unsolvable, but messy, and I do
Hi,
I have two constituencies here; people who would like to see
guile support in make, and to explore the new features. And people who
expect a sensibly small set of packages essential to building other
packages in Debin.
Without guile suport, make just depends on libc, and
s way, but as a
stand-alone utility for users not requiring any root privileges). It is written
in pure Guile, and allows configuration files to be written in scheme (as well
as Vixie's original format) for infinite flexibility in specifying when jobs
should be run.
The package carries the G
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: guile-cairo
Version : 1.4.0
Upstream Author : Andy Wingo
* URL : http://home.gna.org/guile-cairo/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C, Scheme
Descr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: xchat-guile
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Zeeshan Ali Khattak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://piipiip.net/~zeenix/xchat-guile/
* License : GP
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-simplesql
Version : 2.3.2
Upstream Author : Dave Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen R. Kifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hal Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: guile-db
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : C. Ray C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.pyro.net/~crayc/
* License : GPL
Description : Berkeley DB modu
Unfortunately I know absolutely zero about guile, but need it to build
the latest geda. I'm told I need guile 1.3, which I find in the
package guile1.3, and then I installed libguile3. It wants to run
"build-guile" during configure; libguile3-dev supplies build-guile1.3
(without
>>>>> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Karl> I've decided not to take the guile packages from Jim Pick.
Disregard that. I will proceed with the packages.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've decided not to take the guile packages from Jim Pick. I don't
have the time, I really need to study more, I'm not up to the task
right now. I have a nice rules file if anyone wants it.
I've decided to put my energy into learning to use the RScheme
system, rather
ayer? It's a common
dream for many of us, I imagine.
>> Can you explain why you couldn't compile with threads or
>> dynamic linking?
Jim> It was a co-ordination issue with the Gnome package - I don't
Jim> think Gnome would compile when threads were in
Can you explain why you couldn't compile with threads or dynamic
> linking?
It was a co-ordination issue with the Gnome package - I don't think
Gnome would compile when threads were included. I didn't know what to
do to make it work (when using guile) - and there is no documentati
49 matches
Mail list logo
