On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0100, Daniel Widenfalk wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >>
> >>The fact you don't have anyone able to make a working cross-
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The fact you don't have anyone able to make a working cross-compiler
speaks somewhat poorly of the support available for the m68k toolchain,
to
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The point of my previous mail was to demonstrate that I am, in fact,
> > trying to be proactive about getting the qualification done.
>
> The way you demonstrate a
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about
> > > > 1/3rd of the last 90 days beneath it) and has a number of red squares
> > > > still on the release arch qualification page it seems certain at this
>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:42:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > > must be joking?
>
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:27 +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:05:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Omitting debian-devel...
>
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The main
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 13:21 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > must be joking?
>
> Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificiation.
>
> G
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:05:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The main showblocker with that is that package building
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:05:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Omitting debian-devel...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The main showblocker with that is that package building doesn't support
> > "make
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:38:02PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out
> > that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn't know that
> > when we wer
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The main showblocker with that is that package building doesn't support "make
> -jX" yet. I think other archs with SMP support might benefit as well when
> there would be a way to supp
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out
> that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn't know that
> when we were in Helsinki, but it was before that), and that his setup,
> IIRC, was in
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > > must be
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> > must be joking?
>
> Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificia
[possible m68k/coldfire future]
Yo!
While I am almost 100% an x86 person myself, I like the 'Universal OS'
aspect of Debian in the sense of 'runs on any hardware I can find' very
much for ideological/advocacy reasons. Not only as "something other Linux
distros don't do', but also as a very se
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we
> must be joking?
Hey, I haven't seen any activity wrt m68k archive (re)qualificiation.
Given m68k's dropped back below the 95% cutoff (and has spent about
1/3
17 matches
Mail list logo
