On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 01:56:29AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> What's the problem with integrating that patch into our current version
>>> of binutils?
>>
>> Well the version number is cvs20080103-4, which makes me think it's not
>> recent enough for the patch to already be there. I w
Hi,
What's the problem with integrating that patch into our current version
of binutils?
Well the version number is cvs20080103-4, which makes me think it's not
recent enough for the patch to already be there. I would think the patch
itself would just work, but I haven't built and tested it (y
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:21:14PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:40PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>>>
* pie: we've got a number of packages that fail to build because -pie
gives a nonrepresentat
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:40PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
* pie: we've got a number of packages that fail to build because -pie
gives a nonrepresentational output. Can that option be a no-op or
something on m68k so at least st
Hi,
I'll prepare a regular source upload with the version bumped to 1.0.1-3
now if that's OK with y'all? Or should it be 1.0.1-2+b1 instead?
Please use 1.0.1-2.1, because it's a regular NMU. It'd be nice if you
could close #478548 from debian/changelog.
Will do.
Shouldn't you guys be asleep
Hi,
Dato told me on IRC yesterday that it would be okay for us to do so.
Please proceed.
Hmm. It was pointed out to me on IRC that you've done a binary-only
upload, without the source changes that are needed to build the package.
That makes this build non-reproducible, which is a big no-no.
C
Hi,
Is somebody taking on the ilmbase binNMU?
Done, and uploaded.
I'm thinking about building mesa with gcc-4.2 once we get below 150
needs-build. If that succeeds, it'll add several hundred to needs-build.
Any thoughts?
gcc
* courier_0.59.0-1 error: insn does not satisfy its constraints
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:40PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>
> > * pie: we've got a number of packages that fail to build because -pie
> > gives a nonrepresentational output. Can that option be a no-op or
> > something on m68k
* Michael Schmitz [Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:55:19 +0200]:
> I'll prepare a regular source upload with the version bumped to 1.0.1-3
> now if that's OK with y'all? Or should it be 1.0.1-2+b1 instead?
Please use 1.0.1-2.1, because it's a regular NMU. It'd be nice if you
could close #478548 from debian
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:15:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:23AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> Also, is this the only test that's failing?
> >>
> >> Nope, there was another one later on IIRC. I'll disable the PosQNan2
> >> and NegQNan* checks
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> * pie: we've got a number of packages that fail to build because -pie
> gives a nonrepresentational output. Can that option be a no-op or
> something on m68k so at least stuff builds without m68k-specific
> workarounds?
You d
I noticed that #300730 is still open, which says that atari-bootstrap
fails to boot CT60s.
So are any of you folks with CT60s using debian's atari-bootstrap? It's
been the same version since sarge.
I'd like to either confirm and fix this bug or close it.
Roman: I have a pending packing fix for #
As we finally creep towards the 80% built mark with 220 needs-build and
"only" 915 dep-wait, I started looking at some of the toolchain bugs
that have been bothering me. I'm a bit concerned that the timeouts are
related.
Anyway, all of this is beyond me, so grab something and fix it. :)
Is someb
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:38:57AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:29:41PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> q650 (just revived last month)
> >>> has died again and the local admin is unable to restart it without furher
> >>> nagging and guidance on my par
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:29:41PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> q650 (just revived last month)
>>> has died again and the local admin is unable to restart it without furher
>>> nagging and guidance on my part.
>>
>> Should we give-back all the packages still belonging to q650?
>
> By a
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, John Jeffers wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > Does the kernel ATI or Nvidia framebuffer code rely on OF init on PowerPC?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > There used to be initialization code in Linux for the ATI RAGE XL, but
> > las
16 matches
Mail list logo
