ghesk...@shentel.net wrote:
>used dd to write the arm64-bookworm-12.1 netinstall image to a 64G SDXC
>ONN. brand card, makes no attempt to boot plugged into a bananapi-m5.
>bring card back to reader, can't mount it, wrong filesystem for both
>partitions. Give up, write Armbian-jammie-full-deskt
On Feb 11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I agree that changing the i386 port is probably a bad idea at the moment,
> let's see how the armhf port turns out and fix all the bugs first, as this
> is clearly needed anyway. Once there is a working armhf version with
> full time64 user space, there can be a
On Feb 04, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>We'd need to decide exactly which of our 32-bit ports we would want
>to do this path with (probably armhf->arhmft?, maybe
>armel->armelt?, i386->i386t?. mipsel???). Due to the libc6 soname
I agree with Ansgar here: there is no point in rebuilding i386
On Sep 14, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> The Pine64 [6] is another alternative, based on a mobile CPU. It's
> therefore got limited RAM and I/O. Upstreaming has taken a while, but
> is getting there in current kernel releases. U-Boot head will work on
> the board, including the UEFI implementation ment
On Nov 10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I tried to build the experimental linux package on an armhf machine
> using sbuild. It failed (after 7 hours, sigh) with:
This looks like #843073.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Jan 10, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> We have a bug report with a patch by Marco against debootstrap (see
> attachment), which changes how devices are generated; I can't really
> tell how much this might affect all of you (especially with debootstrap
It is not supposed to, since both hurd and kfree
On Feb 14, "luke.leighton" wrote:
> which unfortunately doesn't help anyone who has a dreamplug which
> comes shipped as standard with a 2.6.32 <= .35 kernel. especially on
Not a showstopper, look at check_kernel_features() in preinst.
IIRC I can just add accept4 as well to the list there.
--
Can anybody comment on this?
On Aug 06, md wrote:
> ppp-udeb/armel unsatisfiable Depends: ppp-modules
> ppp-udeb/s390 unsatisfiable Depends: ppp-modules
>
> http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ppp
>
> Please advise. ppp-udeb has been this way for a long time, does it need
>
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=inn2&ver=2.3.3%2B20020922-5&arch=arm&file=log
bison -y -d configfile.y
configfile.y:757.2-762.14: type clash (`' `name') on default action
make[2]: *** [config_y.h] Error 1
It fails only on ARM, why?
I built it myself on i386 with the same bison release.
9 matches
Mail list logo
