Finn Thain píše v Po 27. 04. 2009 v 16:42 +1000:
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>
> > ...with aranym we have plenty of horsepower (although we need to
> > fix the fpu emulation)
>
> Is anyone working on fpu emulation?
Noone, AFAIK.
Petr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> ...with aranym we have plenty of horsepower (although we need to
> fix the fpu emulation)
Is anyone working on fpu emulation? I just found a paper that mentions
three different methods for validating a FPU implementation -
http://www
Hi,
> > Survival of the port may ultimately depend more on attracting new helpers
> > than
> > on re-inclusion in the main distribution.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I think we'd have to have a whole lot more
> interest and support in the port to make it back into sid. Things seem
> to be head
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 04:07:39AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > You still need to be a DD to upload to the ports archive unless we
> > want to forgo the possibility of recycling binaries if/should we
> > return to the main archive.
>
> Can we have a show of hands with respect to this point?
Hi,
> > Best option to get off etch in the short term, yes.
> >
>
> We could start here, then work towards a general lenny-m68k release.
Yep.
And I did not mean to suggest we build absolutely everything in lenny.
> > On the porting, toolchain and buildd front I've been largely silent in the
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:03:18PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> That's right, our old etch-m68k dpkg doesn't support Breaks.
> The options I can think of are.
> Option 1: backport dpkg to etch-m68k
> Yuck. etch-m68k is old and likely insecure. Who knows what
> back-porting dpkg wo
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 05:17:18AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> The toolchain is actually not that bad of shape, TLS aside. Most of
> the issues should clear up once we have a more modern glibc :-/
gcc-4.3 has a fair number of problems. I started documenting at [0].
gcc-4.3 needs love almo
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Michael Schmitz
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>> > Option 2: lenny-lite
>> > Build lenny with base, build-essential, and buildd-required
>> > packages. I can probably do this one myself if there's
>> > interest. I'll probably include anything required for
Hi All,
> > Option 2: lenny-lite
> > Build lenny with base, build-essential, and buildd-required
> > packages. I can probably do this one myself if there's
> > interest. I'll probably include anything required for d-i
> > too.
> >
>
> Probably the sanest option, most o
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> So you may have noticed the following in your buildd logs for python-
> depending packages.
>
> | dpkg: regarding .../python-docutils_0.5-3_all.deb containing
> python-docutils:
> | package uses Breaks; not supported in this dpkg
> | dp
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Brad Boyer wrote:
> Would you say the missing TLS/NPTL for glibc is the biggest problem? I
> thought there were some people working on it, which is why I stopped
> even thinking about it. I know I don't spend much time on m68k work,
> but I'm sure I could find a little time to
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:03:18PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> Option 4: throw in the towel
> Say it's time to retire m68k on debian. We have an ancient
> glibc with borked threads. gcc-4.3 is fairly broken. A
> number of packages need some bugs fixed, others need some
>
So you may have noticed the following in your buildd logs for python-
depending packages.
| dpkg: regarding .../python-docutils_0.5-3_all.deb containing python-docutils:
| package uses Breaks; not supported in this dpkg
| dpkg: error processing
/srv/chroot/sid/var/cache/apt/archives/python-docut
13 matches
Mail list logo
