Hi Guillem,
Thanks for letting us know your thoughts.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:13:11AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> * The assumption that each GNU triplet denotes a different ABI is so
> entrenched in the GNU build system, that we have things like the
> following all over the place to prop
On 02/18/2011 11:48 AM, Jeffrey B. Green wrote:
On 02/18/2011 11:22 AM, Jeffrey B. Green wrote:
Hi everyone,
[...snip prev msg...]
[...snip...]
Are all these drivers really necessary?
By configureing the initramfs system, the size can be reduced, e.g. edit
/etc/initramfs-tools/initramf
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:30:19PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.02.2011 11:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution
> > involving some Debian gcc changes. ]
> The armhf patch for gcc looks ok, however I would like to see this
> better
On 02/18/2011 11:22 AM, Jeffrey B. Green wrote:
Hi everyone,
[...snip prev msg...]
After unpacking the initrd in order to look where the space is going, I see:
du -sm *
2 bin
1 conf
1 etc
1 init
14 lib
2 sbin
1 scripts
And working my way down I get t
Hi everyone,
One of my slugs is still in the process of upgrading but I noticed that
during the setting up of the 2.6.32-5 kernel that the flashing failed
due to (output message):
Running update-initramfs.
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.32-5-ixp4xx
Running flash-kernel.
The
On 18 February 2011 17:10, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> can we drop this now please?
>
Definitely.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis
wrote:
> On 18 February 2011 16:31, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> wrote:
>>
>> nope. don't want arguments / discussions in an environment where the
>> sponsors, genesi usa, would quite likely be happy if i was dead.
>>
> No, we just disa
On 18 February 2011 16:31, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> nope. don't want arguments / discussions in an environment where the
> sponsors, genesi usa, would quite likely be happy if i was dead.
>
> No, we just disagree. This is very unjust to say, and anyway, we're just
ONE
of the sponsor
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Wookey wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with the idea of using bitbake to bootstrap
> Debian, except that what you end up with is a set of fixes outside the
> Debian packaging.
there are clear reasons for why that has to be the case, which we've
gone over before.
+++ Riku Voipio [2011-02-18 11:53 +0200]:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:27:52AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > precisely. this is another, (clearer or at least different) way of
> > stating what i've been advocating. by having such a delta-maintaining
> > tool, complex sets of del
On 18.02.2011 11:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution
involving some Debian gcc changes. ]
The armhf patch for gcc looks ok, however I would like to see this better
addressed in Linaro and/or upstream.
Yes but x86 goes to the other
[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution
involving some Debian gcc changes. ]
Hi!
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 12:27:30 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Trying to kick the dust a bit as having the triplet "in the air" is
> kind of an unhappy situation for armhf :-)
I think it
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:27:52AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> precisely. this is another, (clearer or at least different) way of
> stating what i've been advocating. by having such a delta-maintaining
> tool, complex sets of deltas can be maintained indefinitely, or in
> fact c
On 18 February 2011 06:27, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ... and in the meantime, markos is under pressure to manually
> maintain everything _without_ a delta-management tool, which puts
> ongoing and ever-increasing pressure on what he can reasonably handle,
> whilst those discussions ar
14 matches
Mail list logo
