hi,
i just updated my etch cd, watching all these packages downloading
i can never use, i was reminded again there could be a better way.
here is a "lite desktop" that could be installed easily and might be more
useful as well as saving the build pressure:
apt-get install abiword acpi acpi-supp
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> The following page seems to say that sawfish was correctly built
> in m68k on oct 14.
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=sawfish;ver=1%3A1.3%2Bcvs20061004-1;arch=m68k;stamp=1160812332
> But this one has it in status needs-build
> http://cerberus.0c3.net/~b
Roman Zippel a écrit :
[Skip]
Hmmm, I doubt that this work out well. It's just a feeling.
Most m68k users are using stable, I'd say, so a stable release would fit
best the needs of our users. Forcing them to use testing might be a bad
idea.
Having it be a "stable" release means ha
Dear porters,
Sorry for the annoyance if you are also reading debian-devel, and
already got that mail.
It would be a great help if some porters could compile clustalw on
architectures ia64, mips, mipsel, s390 and m68k. clustalw has been NMUed
during the lesstif transition, but not built on enough
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:43:03AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > The question is what to do _instead_.
> The point is that m68k gets kicked out _before_ any alternative has been
> implemented.
m68k has not been kicked out -- it's still in etch at the moment. It's
not going to stay there though,
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > What are the porters wanted to say? "We want to release with Etch?"
>
> No, releasing with etch is out of the question -- m68k doesn't meet the
> release criteria.
Well, this m
Hi there.
The following page seems to say that sawfish was correctly built
in m68k on oct 14.
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=sawfish;ver=1%3A1.3%2Bcvs20061004-1;arch=m68k;stamp=1160812332
But this one has it in status needs-build
http://cerberus.0c3.net/~buildd/package_status.php?arch=m68
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> What are the porters wanted to say? "We want to release with Etch?"
No, releasing with etch is out of the question -- m68k doesn't meet the
release criteria.
The question is what to do _instead_.
Options are:
* drop m6
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:24:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I've seen, no concrete suggestions on what the m68k porters want to do
> > about this.
> I *have* asked about the possibility to maintain our own
> slightly-different m68k distribution (similar to how amd64 works for
> sarge) on d
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:00:16AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> m68k's buildd situation is a disaster and has been for a year. There
Actually our toolchain has been a disaster since gcc-4.0. Roman has done
a fantastic job of correcting that.
Calling the autobuilder network a disaster is
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have no fucking clue as to what the current state of things is
> and why the architecture has been thrown out, I suggest you keep your
> petty comments to yourself.
> * Etch isn't screwed because of a desperate attempt to support m68k in
> it,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:27:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I don't care either way whether m68k is released in etch. But I do
> care that etch isn't screwed because of a desperate attempt to support
> m68k in it.
[...]
> m68k, while the actual porting team manifestly does not have the
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, this is irrelevant for this thread as the topic of this thread is "m68k
> not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?" and not
> "Thomas Bushnell would like to see his packages being built on m68k". Maybe
> that's disappointing
Ingo Juergensmann a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked abou
* Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-17 14:18]:
> The toolchain looks to be in pretty good shape right now and with
> the next gcc update every reported problem will be fixed
This is slightly off-topic here, but I have not seen any of your m68k
GCC fixes been submitted and incorporated upst
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-17 14:18]:
> > The toolchain looks to be in pretty good shape right now and with
> > the next gcc update every reported problem will be fixed
>
> This is slightly off-topic here, but I have not seen an
Hi all,
So now that the release team has officially declared the m68k port not
part of the release anymore, we need to find out what we want to do with
our port. I guess it's pretty clear, at least on our end, that we do
want to release something which will be as close to etch as possible;
the que
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061017 14:19]:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be
> > > a
> > > release architect
(Please reply to the debian-boot list.)
Preparations for Release Candidate 1 of the installer have now really
started. All important functional changes are now included in the daily
images.
In order improve the quality of the release and reduce the number of nasty
surprises afterwards, it woul
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> - m68k can live without gcj-4.1 for some time, I think, so omit those from
> the release
Actually gcj-4.1 is not an issue anymore (besides current build
dependencies), according to the test results it works for us now even
better than for arm
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
> > release architecture for etch.
>
> > We have also asked about removing m68k from tes
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Why is the most recent g-wrap still not compiled for m68k?
Because it's waiting for guile-1.6? How about instead of only complaining
you contact the maintainer and ask him to check out the patch and release
a fixed package?
bye, Roman
--
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:42:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >>
> >> It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
> >> cases closest to the packa
Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Long time no see, there :-) I wasn't suggesting to send that particular
> code upstream yet. Should just go in the CVS. I will keep that in mind for
> future patches, then.
Yeah I know, too long :(
In general it's better to always add it, but then it would be even
better
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:58:33PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:57:37PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > Thanks for doing such an extensive benchmark. For testing package builds,
> > we really need Petr's disk access speedups ...
>
> Well before doing packages builds,
> Michael, is mail working on vivaldi and spice for you now?
I've set up return address mapping now, but will need to bounce all the
stuff through my system again. Yikes.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:02:28AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> And that's why g-wrap hasn't been built, or is it irrelevant?
Yes, this is irrelevant for this thread as the topic of this thread is "m68k
not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?" and not
"Thomas Bushnell
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
> > release architecture for etch.
>
> > We have also asked about removing m68k from tes
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh well... you already know that m68k suffered from serious toolchain
> problems, which are fixed now thanks to Roman, Stephen Marenka and others,
> and that the w-b queueing algorithm is not known to be very intelligent,
> i.e. it doesn't queue in o
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh well... you already know that m68k suffered from serious toolchain
> problems, which are fixed now thanks to Roman, Stephen Marenka and others,
> and that the w-b queueing algorithm is not known to be very intelligent,
> i.e. it doesn't queue in o
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the porters wanted to say? "We want to release with Etch?" I think
> that's obvious and the porters are doing their best to keep the port going
> and keeping up as much as possible.
Why is the most recent g-wrap still not compiled for m68k
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Um, You'll note that g-wrap also has not been built, another
> dependency of gnucash. Version 1.9.6-3.1 was uploaded on September 7,
> and gnucash depends on that version.
> It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
>> cases closest to the packages I maintain, asking "why don't they work
>> on m68k?"
>
> I expected you would
> > Bummer, I don't have it anymore. And my 2.6.19-rc2 tree doesn't compile yet
> > for Atari.
> >
> > I'll see whether I can get it `working'[*] again...
> >
> > [*] "If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect."
> > -- Linus Tor
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
> cases closest to the packages I maintain, asking "why don't they work
> on m68k?"
I expected you would have realised by that time that you maintain some
of
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Does this explain why guile-1.6 is still not compiled for m68k?
>
> Maybe you just wanted to know if the bug is solved in the meanwhile, but
> your way to ask is very, uhm, bad, because it includes some sort of attack.
> Your question can be under
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
> > release architecture for etch.
> > We have also asked about removing m68k from testin
37 matches
Mail list logo
