+++ Christoph Biedl [2010-12-20 20:06 +0100]:
> Thanks for your detailled answer.
>
> Wookey wrote...
>
> > arm will stay around for
> > another 18 months or so as 'oldstable', and then v4 machines will be
> > pretty-much unsupported in Debian unless someone steps up to support
> > them.
>
> Do
+++ Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [2010-12-20 11:10 +]:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Wookey wrote:
> > +++ Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [2010-12-19 21:04 +]:
> >
> >> weelll... how about creating an easy means for anybody to create
> >> their _own_ debootstrap'd cross-compiled start
+++ Steve Langasek [2010-12-20 14:53 -0800]:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:17:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I suggest a different way: Add a new "bootstrap mode" to the build
> > utilities (as per DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS='bootstrap=yes'), in which a
> > source package can be built even if packages
* Konstantinos Margaritis (mar...@genesi-usa.com) [101220 23:43]:
> I never said it would be easy, but having said that, I like your
> suggestion better, it's more elegant.
> Of course it would still need changes from the maintainers, but it's
> much easier to have that
> accepted indeed.
Especial
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:17:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Konstantinos Margaritis (mar...@genesi-usa.com) [101220 23:04]:
> > a. identify all the circural dependencies in the package tree
> > (probably something ilke that is already done using some tool)
> > b. Modify some packages to actu
On 21 December 2010 00:17, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I doubt that you get enough buy-in from the maintainers to do that.
I never said it would be easy, but having said that, I like your
suggestion better, it's more elegant.
Of course it would still need changes from the maintainers, but it's
much ea
* Konstantinos Margaritis (mar...@genesi-usa.com) [101220 23:04]:
> a. identify all the circural dependencies in the package tree
> (probably something ilke that is already done using some tool)
> b. Modify some packages to actually separate into 2 _source_ packages,
> a -core and a -full. The -cor
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis
wrote:
> Also, It should be a fix in the policy that NO package should ever be
> allowed to have circular dependecies. Without a change in the policy
> the problem will never be fixed.
a simple change to debian policy and thence to dpkg-bu
> FWIW, my box is a "Raidsonic NAS IB-4220-B" (machtype 2038, FA526 CPU,
IIRC these are not strongarm based. They're a cheap NAS chipset from a
Tiwanese manufacturer who is still knocking out custom cores that only
implement ARMv4. I assume that being prehistoric and effectively incompatible
wi
On 20 December 2010 02:08, Wookey wrote:
> I'd love to hear from Konstantinos what his list of problem packages
> is, and what hackery was done to get each initial build done.
Oh, wow, that's a loong list of hacks. The biggest problem I had with
bootstraping armhf was the overwhelming number of c
Thanks for your detailled answer.
Wookey wrote...
> arm will stay around for
> another 18 months or so as 'oldstable', and then v4 machines will be
> pretty-much unsupported in Debian unless someone steps up to support
> them.
Do I hear a call for volunteers?
> This is unfortunate for people st
> I believe that the v4-support in the toolchain was eventually done,
> but I'm not sure if it's mainlined, and we definately haven't changed
> the default Debian build. Can someone who knows/recalls the details
> tell us what the cost of building armel for v4 would be, and if it is
> actually poss
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [2010-12-19 21:04 +]:
>
>> weelll... how about creating an easy means for anybody to create
>> their _own_ debootstrap'd cross-compiled starting point, based on
>> _their_ decisions and requirements, and debian
13 matches
Mail list logo
