Hello Frans,
Frans Pop wrote:
> Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > The proposed glibc patch will break the installer. The installer does
> > not have the symlink from /usr/lib64 to /usr/lib. (This is not by
> > accident. It has been decided following some discussion.)
>
> The
/usr/lib.
Many packages rely on this fact. Many things, especially during the build
process, will break if the native libraries are not in /usr/lib.
It would be a _lot_ of work to change the whole distribution to use
/usr/lib64 instead of /usr/lib as the location of the native libraries.
Regar
On 06-May-19 11:02, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anything which makes it easier to violate this simple policy
> > will lead to a mixed usage of /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 and consequently
> > to problems which could be dif
ll packages to install native
amd64 libraries in /usr/lib is simple and sane. This should not be
changed.
Anything which makes it easier to violate this simple policy
will lead to a mixed usage of /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 and consequently
to problems which could be difficult to disentangle later.
Thi
uests for the addition of 'ppc64'
to the architecture line in debian/control as 'wontfix'.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
architecture using that name.
Please stop trying to change the package name 'ppc64'.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05-Sep-20 19:01, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 05:44:34PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > I currently have no other place to host a public archive for the
> > native 64-bit Debian-ppc64 port. Because of this, I did not yet
> > delete the debian-ppc64 a
le reduce this to about 15 GB by dropping
old package versions. Hopefully this will be acceptable.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel package
to add a small 8-line patch to support the native ppc64 port
by reusing the kernel config files which are already available
on the regular powerpc architecture.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]:
> > I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the
> > final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64
> > packages have not been built by DD
stable' FTBFS. It will likely
take many months, if not years, for amd64 to get anywhere near to the
requested 98% mark again.
Will the amd64 port be rejected if more than two percent of the
unmodified source packages from 'unstable' fail to compile?
If not, what does the 98%
On 05-May-06 00:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:58:27AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> A few things you might want to do with this list here:
...
> - post it to debian-devel so people can poke through these for the BSP this
> weekend
The new list of FTBFS bug
On 05-Apr-28 12:21, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:42:50AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > E: Package libxaw-dev has no installation candidate
> > E: Failed to satisfy Build-Depends dependency for axe: libxaw-dev
> >
> > The new version 6.1.2-14
g Build-Depends on 'junit'" or
> > "'./debian_patch' not executable"
>
> > also appear on all arches including i386. I think those are 'serious'
> > FTBFS bugs, even for packages in 'contrib'. What should be done with
> >
i386. I think those are 'serious'
FTBFS bugs, even for packages in 'contrib'. What should be done with
those?
> Any way, I leave all the bug you reported and will try to upload fixes
> as soon as possible.
Thank you for all the fixes to my reports which you already uploaded
and for your work in general!
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:32:25AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>> Debian sarge release for the amd64 architecture
>> ---
>>
>> At the amd porters irc meeting on 2005-04-23 07:00 UTC, the amd64
Hello Kurt,
thank you for the clarifications.
On 05-Apr-25 19:49, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:32:25AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > gnustep-base - + does not build with gcc-3.3 (needs gcc >= 3.4)
> It looks like it builds fine with gcc-3.3. But
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> portslave- "pppd.h: No such file or directory"
>
> Hmm, you may want to re-check this against current versions of ppp and
> portslave.
I just re-checked this again and now portslave builds fine in testing,
thanks.
Regards
Because of this, portslave has a FTBFS problem in sarge now until the
latest ppp makes it into sarge.
Again, thanks for looking at my list of amd64 related FTBFS bugs.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is available which fixes
the problem.
Additionally, the following "Architecture: all" packages from Debian sarge
fail to build from source on amd64:
Package Bug No. Description
--- ---
libtool1.4 #247299 demo-nopic.test has to be skipped on amd64
... [this table has to be completed]
Last update: 2005-04-24 Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Steve,
thank you for your reply to my status report.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Andreas Jochens wrote:
>> It will only be necessary to describe the current situation
>> in the official release documents and include pointers
>> to the separate amd64 archive, which will b
the official release documents and include pointers
to the separate amd64 archive, which will be provided
by the amd64 porting team anyway.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
P.S.: The above statements represent my personal view only.
Other members of the amd64 porting team may view things differently,
of course.
standard 'java-package' j2sdk1.4 packages preset?
Thank you for your fast reply and sorry for the noise.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05-Apr-12 09:30, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > When building 'usermin-contrib' on i386/unstable with sun-j2sdk1.4,
> > I get the following error:
>
> So don't do that then. The build depends is for j2sdk1.4 (i.e. Blackdown.)
&#
ich are already in
version 2.3.4 have been dropped for this. Only about 30 patches out
of more than 100 had to be kept.
The newer glibc version works quite well so far. Two other packages
needed a small patch to properly run with glibc-2.3.4.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
that deviating from the standard was a bad thing
in this case.
I did not yet hear a single vote for the package name 'powerpc64' from
anybody who is actively involved in the p(ower)pc64 port.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
iled, you do not accept that decision. You are basically
saying:
"Take the name 'powerpc64' which I like best - or that architecture
will not be supported."
But you do not have any convincing reason for not accepting the choosen
name.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel build will soon
> require this.
The compiler in the current ppc64 archive is fully biarch, i.e. it can
produce 64 bit and 32 bit binaries. There is also a 64 bit and a 32 bit
glibc version in the archive.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > > This i
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> >
> Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
> are curren
ckages
from the Debian unstable distribution compiled. That number is still
(slowly) rising. Every help will be appreciated, of course.
Please help the ppc64 port by including support for the ppc64
architecture in 'dpkg' and other packages.
Many thanks to all package maintainers who
31 matches
Mail list logo
