> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bdale> Ok, so I was trying to build something on my Netwinder that
Bdale> needed pieces not already installed, so I freshened it to
Bdale> latest sid. In the process, I seem to have broken my
Bdale> ability to compile anyth
>Was libc6-2.2.1 done by the build daemon? If so, is there some type
>of a sanity check on things before they get uploaded?
I don't think it was. At least, I can't find any trace of it in my build
daemon logs. I guess someone built it by hand.
p.
> "Philip" == Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> Isn't it still in the pool directory? If not, I almost
Philip> certainly have one on my disk at work. I'll look it out
Philip> tomorrow.
Thanks!
I was ready to reinstall potato now.
Was libc6-2.2.1 done by the
>Does anyone have a copy of libc-2.2_??_arm.deb around still? That
>seems to the only version of 'libc' that works right now (unless you
>reinstall from a potato image).
Isn't it still in the pool directory? If not, I almost certainly have one on
my disk at work. I'll look it out tomorrow.
p.
> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bdale> Ok, so I was trying to build something on my Netwinder that
Bdale> needed pieces not already installed, so I freshened it to
Bdale> latest sid. In the process, I seem to have broken my
Bdale> ability to compile anyth
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I see. Does it look as though all command-line arguments are just being
> >> ignored?
> >
> >That would a reasonable diagnosis.
>
> Well, it's pretty weird. Wookey tried that kernel on a RiscPC and didn't
>> I see. Does it look as though all command-line arguments are just being
>> ignored?
>
>That would a reasonable diagnosis.
Well, it's pretty weird. Wookey tried that kernel on a RiscPC and didn't
complain of any problems in that respect. (He did have trouble booting on an
ARM610.)
Boot pa
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >the flag above. Without the suppression of course, the drive appears at
> >hdc, which might be ok, but it still panics when it can't find the root
> >filesystem.
>
> I see. Does it look as though all command-
>inetd: getrlimit: Function not implemented.
I just tried the 2.2.18-rmk1 `netwinder' kernel from lkab on my CATS, and I
don't see that error. This with the latest potato versions of libc6 and
inetd. I guess you have to debug it some more yourself.
p.
>It's on APDL interface, with root filesystem normally being hda4. There
>are errors about time outs on internal IDE - unsurprising, since there's
>nothing on it - but this is normally suppressed on other kernels with
>the flag above. Without the suppression of course, the drive appears at
>hdc,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >lkab 2.2.18 kernel doesn't boot for me - it appears to become upset at
> >not having drives on the internal IDE interface, and does't respond to
> >the normal ide0=0 parameters, evetually panicking because it ca
>lkab 2.2.18 kernel doesn't boot for me - it appears to become upset at
>not having drives on the internal IDE interface, and does't respond to
>the normal ide0=0 parameters, evetually panicking because it can't find
>the root partition, even though the location is adjusted in the boot
>parameters.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Naulls writes:
> >You don't say what kernel you're using, but the current GCC certainly
> >has a problem on 2.2.16-rmk3 kernels. You could try 2.4, or downgrade
> >GCC as P
Philip Blundell wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Naulls writes:
> >You don't say what kernel you're using, but the current GCC certainly
> >has a problem on 2.2.16-rmk3 kernels. You could try 2.4, or downgrade
> >GCC as Phil suggested.
>
> I'm pretty confident the kernel isn't at f
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Naulls writes:
>You don't say what kernel you're using, but the current GCC certainly
>has a problem on 2.2.16-rmk3 kernels. You could try 2.4, or downgrade
>GCC as Phil suggested.
I'm pretty confident the kernel isn't at fault here. But, if people want to
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee) wrote:
> Ok, so I was trying to build something on my Netwinder that needed pieces not
> already installed, so I freshened it to latest sid. In the process, I seem to
> have broken my ability to compile anything at all. Th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Philip Blundell writes:
>It does seem that the current cpp is broken. I don't know how this happened,
>offhand. Try downgrading cpp-2.95 to an earlier version.
Belay that; in fact it appears that the breakage is caused by libc6_2.2.1-1.
Backing out to libc6 2.2
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bdale Garbee writes:
>Ok, so I was trying to build something on my Netwinder that needed pieces not
>already installed, so I freshened it to latest sid. In the process, I seem to
>have broken my ability to compile anything at all. The failure is always a
>signal 11
Ok, so I was trying to build something on my Netwinder that needed pieces not
already installed, so I freshened it to latest sid. In the process, I seem to
have broken my ability to compile anything at all. The failure is always a
signal 11 in cpp, the simplest test case I've found is 'cpp -v' wh
19 matches
Mail list logo
