On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 13:03 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > dpkg --add-architecture i386
> > apt-get update
> >
> > The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The
> > i386/amd64 installer images might at
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> dpkg --add-architecture i386
> apt-get update
>
> The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The
> i386/amd64 installer images might at least be usable as multiarch APT
> sources though.) So this is a
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
> >>> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
>
> > I guess it is bash telling you that.
>
> >> That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader fo
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> >
> > release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to
> > make
> > Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
>
> How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel fe
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:01:26AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> > But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
> >
>
> This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit
> Debian installation, it's because the support
On 01/03/2013 02:16 PM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>
>> release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to
>> make
>> Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
>
> How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel fea
Timo Weingärtner writes:
> Hallo Russ Allbery,
>> I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open
>> the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in
>> order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode
>> understanding of ELF binary layout form
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a
> >> binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as
> >> Linux has existed.
> > That's already reported as bug #609882.
> I think that's askin
Hallo Russ Allbery,
2013-01-03 um 19:26:46 schriebst Du:
> Timo Weingärtner writes:
> > 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> >> Alexey Eromenko writes:
> >>> User error? Huh ?
> >>>
> >>> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
> >>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DO
Timo Weingärtner writes:
> 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> Alexey Eromenko writes:
>>> User error? Huh ?
>>> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
>>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
>>> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
> I guess it is bash tel
clone 697270 -1
retitle -1 misleading error message when ELF interpreter does not exist
reassign -1 bash
severity -1 normal
merge -1 609882
retitle 697270 i386 multiarch not enabled and ia32-libs not installed by
default on amd64
severity 697270 minor
tags 697270 +wontfix
thanks
Hi Alexey,
2013-
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make
> Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel feature ?
I recommend: "tasksel" to install 32-bit libraries b
Le jeudi, 3 janvier 2013 18.44:59, Alexey Eromenko a écrit :
> But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
By the way:
* Debian is not LSB-certified
* ... but the lsb-* packages try to provide a working implementation.
No work has been attempted to provide Multi-Arch lsb packages (
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
>
This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit
Debian installation, it's because the support is not added into
default installation as the feature isn't consider
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
Debian provides LSB compliance via the lsb set of packages. Not everyone
wants to have all LSB packages installed or particularly cares about LSB
compliance. If you do:
aptitude install lsb
will install
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> User error? Huh ?
It is, I'm afraid.
> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
No, it is not.
> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES
> EXIST.
It does not. However, the file the message is referring to is not the
file you think it refers to: it is mi
On 01/04/2013 01:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
>> apt-get install iceweasel
>>
>> and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
> Not, because my job requires the lates
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
>> apt-get install iceweasel
>>
>> and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
>
> Not, because my job requ
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> User error? Huh ?
> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary
doesn't exist. I think that's be
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
> apt-get install iceweasel
>
> and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
Not, because my job requires the latest FireFox (latest-and-greatest).
And the standard Fi
On 01/04/2013 01:02 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on
> this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ?
>
It all depends.
How did you even install Firefox 32 bits? We don't have such a
package in Debian. It's rebranded as "ic
Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on
this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lis
User error? Huh ?
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Control: reassign -1 general
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> Package: kernel-image
> Version: 3.2.0
> severity: serious
>
> (kernel-image-3.2.0-4-amd64-di)
>
> Dear developers,
>
> 32-bit programs, such as FireFox refuse to work on Debian 7.0 64-bit (amd64).
> This is new fresh stock install from di-B
Package: kernel-image
Version: 3.2.0
severity: serious
(kernel-image-3.2.0-4-amd64-di)
Dear developers,
32-bit programs, such as FireFox refuse to work on Debian 7.0 64-bit (amd64).
This is new fresh stock install from di-BETA4 Wheezy DVD. (KDE)
The same works great on Debian 6.0 64-bit !
user@
26 matches
Mail list logo
