#include
* Michael Gilbert [Sat, Mar 11 2006, 10:21:46PM]:
> Hello,
>
> I was recently browsing the web on a windows box and realized that
> over the last 4 years, I had forgotten how nice it is to be able
> browse back/forward with a single button click. So I set about
> enabling this functiona
On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, does ia64 NOT map anything into the lower 4GiB address
> space like alpha does?
Yup. Normally, nothing gets mapped below 0x2000.
--david
--
Mosberger Consulting LLC, http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/
Hello,
I was recently browsing the web on a windows box and realized that
over the last 4 years, I had forgotten how nice it is to be able
browse back/forward with a single button click. So I set about
enabling this functionality on my Debian box. I found this gentoo doc
(http://gentoo-wiki.com/
"David Mosberger-Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
>> > t.c: In function `foo':
>> > t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `strdup'
>> > t.c:4: warning: return makes pointer from integer wi
Roger Leigh wrote:
> This updated version should cater for both the old and new behaviour.
> Any comments?
Maintainers using this should be aware that it will mistakenly delete
conffiles that have been converted to e.g., ucf configuration files.
This is, of course, unavoidable.
It will also dele
* Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-11 21:15]:
> > Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let
> > people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default.
>
> That's what we're doing.
Note that Ben has done a great job sending patches to the bugs I've
filed.
On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
> > t.c: In function `foo':
> > t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `strdup'
> > t.c:4: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
>
> (all asm is from amd64)
>
> 004005
* Richard B. Kreckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-11 22:09]:
> Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet.
...
> Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play
> with that compiler a bit before making it the default.
What I mentioned were the
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as
important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in
unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious.
Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet.
W
Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> >Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as
> >important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in
> >unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious.
> >
> >
> Jeez, according to my availa
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 09:31:29PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 12:06:40PM -0800, John Gee wrote:
> > Guys honestly why aren't we as developers doing a massive overhaul on dpkg?
> > I feel we are running on pre-historic machines here. There needs to be at
> > least a litt
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 12:06:40PM -0800, John Gee wrote:
> Guys honestly why aren't we as developers doing a massive overhaul on dpkg?
> I feel we are running on pre-historic machines here. There needs to be at
> least a little looking toward the future in our blood.
What exactly are you missi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
aowdDBQFEEAQnW5ql+IAeqTIRAlkd6AJsGQ82Bn79PukWYEdsVsBRFeAzAowCgmRdN
WauYdVaZFXVlBRP/M5l+SmQ=
=VcTX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Guys honestly why aren't we as developers doing a massive overhaul on dpkg?
I feel we are running on pre
> >
> >You may look at dpkg-cross ...
>
> I did, and I'm using it, thanks:-)
>
> What is the deal BTW with that new rewrite_dependencies (as of 1.26)
> producing bogus names with
> -dcv1 suffix? I had to comment 2 lines out of dpkg-cross script to make
> it work for libgpm for instance...
It's ver
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes, check for changes in /sbin/halt.
As I said the problem also occures with the old /sbin/halt.
Why should I check for changes between two non working versions?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBS
Peter Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> Of the six or so packages I'm involved with, three of them need more
>> than just '--host'. (And two of the others are arch:all, so there's no
>> need to cross-compile them anyway.) If that's representative, you're
>> lookin
Hi!
Since my last update on Buildd.Net [0] features here [1] many new features
were added to Buildd.Net. I'll try to some them up:
* a new design - the layout and structure of Buildd.Net changed.
* devel systems - to support developers in their porting work, Buildd.Net
donates accounts on s
On Saturday 11 March 2006 09:10, Kevin Mark wrote:
> -- vbi:
> > Kevin:
[mediation]
> > > After the meeting everyone would agree to not discuss anything in
> > > public and only redress further problems by arranging another private
> > > irc session.
> >
> > Hmm. I agree with you that solving the
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:24:21AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
[...]
> The fonts in ttf-dejavu could be a good replacement for ttf-freefont
> in case the line spacing issue is a blocker. Thus, Davide Viti will
> try to check whether these DejaVu fonts cover enough glyph ranges.
I've done some
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libdata-visitor-perl
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://mirrors.kernel.org/cpan/modules/by-module/Data/Data-Visitor-0
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libtest-use-ok-perl
Version : 0.01
Upstream Author : Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://mirrors.kernel.org/cpan/modules/by-module/Test/Test-use-ok-0.
Wouldn't this package conflict with the 'manpages' package (which provides
them for GNU/Linux) and with the manpages provided by other (core) packages?
Or are all manpages going to be renamed so that there is no filename conflict
under /usr/share/man/man{2,4}?
no manpages are not going to be ren
"David Mosberger-Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Samuel,
>
> You're missing the point of the check-implicit-pointer-functions
> script. Its purposes is not to "grep for warnings" but instead to
> look for pairs of warnings that are *guaranteed* to cause crashes on
> 64-bit machines. gcc -Wal
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Until last month, dpkg "forgot" about conffiles which were removed or
>>> moved on package upgrade. As a consequence, maintainers had to
>>> remember to purge these conffiles "by hand" in
Quoting Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Mar 11, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The idea of non-free installation images pops up but, later, there
> > were comments that it would make the maintenance of D-I builds more
> > complicated, and it is enough complicated already
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:16:58PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * Florian Haas [Thu, Mar 09 2006, 06:31:42PM]:
> > That is fine and dandy, but how do you want to adress the underlying
> > problem of the work ?
>
> We need a mediator - an official delegate who is responsible for finding
> a solutio
> g-i integration
> ---
>
> Since the last meeting, several blockers have been raised and,
> actually, the integration of Graphical Installer builds in the main
> build system is theoretically possible.
It seems that at least one person (hello, Lars) survived down to this
part...whi
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
I have devoted some time cross-compiling a number of essential packages,
with glibc-based,
uclibc-based and dietlibc-based ARM and MIPS toolchains and found all of
that not a huge
problem at all, given that "debian/rules" is provisioned with proper
calls to --host (a
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Peter Kourzanov]
For most of the packages, what is so different in cross-compilation
in comparison to native?
Whether or not 'configure' believes it can use tests of the form "try
compiling and running this little program to see what it does". If it
is cross-c
On Mar 11, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea of non-free installation images pops up but, later, there
> were comments that it would make the maintenance of D-I builds more
> complicated, and it is enough complicated already. Another argument
> is: as soon as non free images
(reply-to: debian-boot)
Debian Installer team meeting number 10 has been held from 17:00UTC to
18:30UTC on Saturday March 4th 2006.
There were about 80 people connected to the channel during the meeting
and 13 of them spoke during the meeting at least once.
The full log of the meeting is availab
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 08:52:53AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Saturday 11 March 2006 03:27, Kevin Mark wrote:
> [DPL as mediator]
>
> The DPL already could do that. The DPL probably in the past *did* step in
> in some cases behind the scenes. There's no reason for the technical
> ove
32 matches
Mail list logo
