Joel Ewy wrote:
package selection for DSL is already based on the exact
criteria that would make a good OS release for 68k machines -- packing
as much functionality as you can in the lowest amount of disk space,
with memory use and good performance on slower processors a high priority.
Sounds v
I've been using Damn Small Linux on low-end x86 machines for a while now
and have been very happy with its performance, general utility, and
creative approach. While the effort to regroup for a possible Etch+1
release for the m68k architecture is underway, perhaps it would be worth
considering a r
I've applied Geert's inotify codes to xserver-xorg-input-evdev, that
seems to be fine as far as it goes.
The build fails [1] on what appears to be a toolchain bug, outside of
xserver-xorg-input-evdev. Namely, we get:
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../src -I.. -Wall -Wall -g -O2
-DXFree86Server -DI
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 14:18 +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I've applied Geert's inotify codes to xserver-xorg-input-evdev, that
> seems to be fine as far as it goes.
>
> The build fails [1] on what appears to be a toolchain bug, outside of
> xserver-xorg-input-evdev.
Oops forgot the reference, so
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > That's rather unlikely, the m68k patches are already separate, so they
> > won't affect another port.
>
> Right, but they could affect the security supportability of m68k *itself* by
> introducing regressions late in the freeze.
Well, everythi
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:38:30PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote:
> it says 21.4 there. that is the mass build a guy made in
> april for mac68k. it is not necessarily tested, but it did build.
ok, that would mean the old problem that I encountered was
fixed or maybe xemacs reintroduced the old lisp en
Geert wrote:
> Both my 2.95.2 and 3.2 cross compilers define __mc68000__, but not __m68k__.
OK I'll patch with __mc68000__ then.
Drew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383817
>
> That patch looks fairly m68k specific to my amateur eye. Or should it also
> fix the segfaults on other arches (s390, alpha, arm) where the build also
> failed?
Yes, it's m68k-specific, s
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> > It was a bug in libgc and there is finally a new release, as soon as
> > it's installed it, it should work again.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Is there a bug#? In which version was it fixed?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383817
bye, Roman
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> During the builds of debian-installer for the last stable point release,
> you did tracing of the w3m segfaults during the building of the
> installation guide.
>
> I don't think I ever saw what the reasons were and if a BR was filed.
>
> As it is l
10 matches
Mail list logo
