Mustafa KYR wrote:
> Hello,
> I am a new engineer and I was just a debian user in my former life. I want
> to build debian linux from sources to understand it all. I spent lots of
> time during search about it.
I'm not sure how much building from source will help your understanding,
but anyway, ht
Luk Claes wrote:
> Hi Thiemo
>
> Thanks for this status report.
>
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > I went again through the mips build problems and collected the appended
> > list which records the current state, with a few annotations added.
>
> > Needs retry
>
I went again through the mips build problems and collected the appended
list which records the current state, with a few annotations added.
Thiemo
Debian mips port, status 2007-05-16. See also:
http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?suite=unstable&a=mips&priority=
Architecture
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:40:57AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
> >
> > Due to kernel problems, the mips* buildds haven't been very reliable in
> > the past few weeks, creating a lng backlog of packages that need to
> > be built. As there seems to be a workar
Neil Williams wrote:
[snip]
> As noted elsewhere in this thread, --build can be specified alone but is
> usually only used for specialist builds for i686 on i386 etc. I fail to
> see the merit of proposing that packages add --build to the normal
> Debian build for no reason.
One reason is that a g
Hello All,
I went through the whole set of failing builds for mips, fixed some
bugs and had at least a cursory look at each package. The result is
the rather terse list I append here.
Thiemo
Debian mips port, buildability status 2007-11-03. See also:
http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/arc
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[snip]
> 2/ Second example, libconfig0 has a supplementary symbols
> _PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_ on sparc and alpha. I don't know where it comes
> from.
> Is this a internal symbols that I missed?
> On powerpc it has _SDA_BASE_ and _SDA2_BASE_. Same question as above.
> On amd
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> while working on http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/ImprovedDpkgShlibdeps
> I'm discovering some arch-specific differences in the "objdump -T"
> output of libraries.
>
> * On ia64, static functions appear in objdump's output and they are marked
> as "local".
>
Steve McIntyre wrote:
[snip]
> mips
>
> jealously scribbles all over the first 512 bytes
I figure that's a DVH "Disk Volume Header" as used on SGI machines.
> mipsel
> ==
> bytes 000-008 : 0-padding
> 008-011 : magic header
> 012-015 : boot mode
> 016-019 : load address
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:53:32PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I can also note why bazaar wont build as root: its test suite
> > > > includes a test for the ability to handle read only directories
> > > > correctly
Ian Wienand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of my packages (numactl) has dropped support for two
> architectures. I would very much like the new package to make it into
> testing, but it of course fails the up-to-date on previous
> architectures rule. I thought if I had removed the architectures the
> scri
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc documentation. Both
> myself and people to whom I recommend Debian, *need* gcc documentation to
> be available in the system.
>
> So I had four options:
> - start a new flamewar on the issue,
> - s
Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Falk Hueffner a écrit :
> >> Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>>On arm, ia64 and alpha the glibc fails to build with gcc-4.1.
> >> On Alpha the problem is:
> >> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> >> {sta
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 04:07:22PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> > The obvious example is the UK, which insists on checking your
> > passport if you come from the mainland.
Passport or ID Card, that is.
> The www.britishembassy.gov.uk website suggests EEA n
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 25 May 2006, Andreas Tille spake thusly:
>
> > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >> It has come to my attention that Martin Kraff used an
> >> unofficial, and easily forge-able, identity device at a large key
> >
> > Is there any reason to revoke my si
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[snip]
> The installer can use whatever seems most appropriate (does it even log?):
The installer does log and puts the logs at /var/log/debian-installer/ on
the successfully installed system. If the installation fails, the logs (in
the installer ramdisk) are a valuable sou
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:34 + Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>
> > [For -legal people, the license is attached.]
>
> Thanks.
>
> [...]
> > Also, section 4 poses a major issue. If, for any reason, the Linux
> > kernel doesn't do something that Java requires, then we are obl
Carlos Correia wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Florian Weimer escreveu:
> | * Jeroen van Wolffelaar:
> |
> |
> |>Official packages of Sun Java are now available from the non-free
> |>section of Debian unstable, thanks to Sun releasing[11 Java under a new
> |>license: t
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > Being able to install multiple versions is some use to multiarch, but
> > > could also be used for other things, such if two packages provide the
> > > same binary (git for example).
> > > Or to install multiple 'version 'numbers' of the same package.
> >
> > T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I have created a new page in the wiki to track info and status
> >
> > http://wiki.debian.org/multiarch
>
> I looked at the "upstream standards proposal":
> http://lackof.org/taggart/hacking/multiarch/
>
> It's good.
> I am particularly pleased by the specification:
>
Frank Küster wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.
Frank Küster wrote:
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> also sprach Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
> >> > * License : GPL v2 or later
> >>
> >> That will make it pretty useless for
Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:53:15AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > Such a binary is completely broken, and it would fail in a similiar way
> > for any sort of file it has no execute permission for, not only for
> > $SHELL.
>
> Sure, but that
Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:00:42AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > > You can surely explain why /bin/nologin is more secure than
> > > /bin/false. I'm eager to learn.
> >
> > I am curious why any of both would be more secure than /
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2006 11:12:35 +0300, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> The rest of the system accounts are happily running with /bin/false
> >
> >There is now /bin/nologin whic
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:02:57AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> > For Etch and Sid, it is probably a good idea to use -Os instead of -O2 at
> > least on the bigger arches (ia32, ia64, amd64, etc), as we can probably
> > trust gcc not to screw up.
>
> I
Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > By this lie of reasoning the only task that Debian can afford to ship is
> > either KDE or Gnome.
>
> No, not at all. That is not what I was trying to say. KDE and GNOME were
> examples of something that did not happen overnight. They proved worthy
>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2006, Thiemo Seufer told this:
>
> > Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> >> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >>> "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> >>>
> >>> Even better (I
Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> >
> > Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
> > disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.
>
> Is there a problem with using "Amateur (Ham) R
André Luiz Rodrigues Ferreira wrote:
> 2006/4/13, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Le Jeu 13 Avril 2006 15:20, Linas Žvirblis a écrit :
> > > > I think this would be better than a meta package because it would
> > > > be available in the regular install, and it would avoid some of the
> > >
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 03:09:11PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another "wishful thinking" idea for build machines to float.
>
> Suppose I get a bug report saying my package has failed to build on
> architecture glooble. I don't personally have a globle machine. To
> debug th
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
[snip]
> >>There's also kfreebsd-{i386,amd64}, so why don't you use uclibc-i386?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, I disagree. To me it makes perfect sense the way it
> >currently is, namely:
> > kernel-arch-libc
> >
> >kernel and libc c
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:47:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 12:22:27AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Chris Stromsoe wrote:
> > > for the entire lifetime of the current stable release. Will -17.1 be
> > > making its way into stable
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
[snip]
> A similar issue I noted in the past is the big number of build failures
> that don't get tagged 'Failed'. I tried working on classifying them, but
> got bored so increadibly fast that I gave up, and decided for myself
> this should be something the porters shou
Heiko Müller wrote:
> Dear Thiemo,
> we very much appreciate your work on the gcc-2.95 debian package.
> For us - and probably also for other users in the scientific
> community - the "old" compiler version is still of great value.
>
> We use gcc-2.95 to compile C/C++ code with very large mathema
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> > -grub2: !hppa !ia64 m68k #
> > bootloader
> > +grub2: !hppa !ia64 !m68k !alpha !mips !mipsel !s390 !sparc #
> > bootloader for i386/powerpc [?]
Is a P-a-s entry some sort of a final verdict? I don't think it
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Ok. Here's some feedback on some that I either disagree with, or don't see
> > enough rationale for. (This is why, ideally, the process should involve the
> > porters and the maintainers...)
> Thanks. Doesn't hurt do get educated..
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> > > So those should get added to P-a-s instead.
> > Well, but that'd be something for the buildd-admin to collect.
> > (Or maintainers of the packages, but that doesn't seem to fashionable
> > nowadays...)
>
> Um... no. This is *porter* work; one does not have to be
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Vincent Sanders wrote:
> > [1] http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?a=arm
>
> taking a "random" (end of alphabet) sample from maybe-failed:
>
> twinkle: requeue (probably libccrtp was stuck in NEW)
> wvstreams: Dep-Wait (libxplc0.3.13-dev) - d
mentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
> > texlive-documentation-dutch texlive-nl-doc
> > texlive-documentation-english texlive-en-doc
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Norbert
> >
>
> In [1], Thiemo Seufer asserts that "FWIW,
Norbert Preining wrote:
[snip]
> For the language stuff: Here is a problem as some languages packages are
> not *one* single language, but several (arabic, cjk, other). So would it
> be the best solution to have
> old:texlive-langX
> new:texlive--lang
> ?
Arabic is "ar"
Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
> > foo-documentation-ukenglish. This allows to filter documentation
> > packages by name (doc-* or *-doc), and following the standar
Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
> > nicely as "texlive-lang-tibetan" and "texlive-fonts-recommended".
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > > texlive-binaries-source 96M
> > > texlive-basicbin
> > What about texlive-bin-base?
>
Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Thiemo" == Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Well, even if I know naught about it, it looks to me that having
> >> something signed is better than having the same something not signed.
&
Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > I can see arguments against it, but none that make
> > > it an RC bug.
> >
> > Policy violations are RC by definition.
> According to policy "should"'s
Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:03, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > But the .dsc is. This stuff is easily traceable, if we want to. I can
> > see the benefit of having the same name in the Maintainer field and in the
> > changelog for some. I can see arguments against it, but n
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
> > Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
> > > > Btw, about this simple-minded test:
> > > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
> > Btw, about this simple-minded test:
> > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
> > nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog
> > for whatev
Stephen Gran wrote:
[snip]
> And we are in danger of allowing policy to drive practice, rather than
> vice versa.
>
> The problem is, there are many packages currently being group
> maintained. These groups generally have some sort of group contact
> email address:
> grep-dctrl -n -s Maintainer
Stephen Gran wrote:
[snip]
> > > > "The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog should
> > > > be the details of the person uploading this version. They are not
> > > > necessarily those of the usual package maintainer."
> > [snip]
> > > I think that are two distinct c
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> [Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.]
>
> * Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 02:13]:
>
> > Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with you. A
> > &
Marc Haber wrote:
[snip]
> > How is it possible for you to claim something is more secure
> >when you don't understand it well enough to say how it's different?
>
> Well, even if I know naught about it, it looks to me that having
> something signed is better than having the same something not sign
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Rafael Laboissiere said:
> > I am moving this discussion to debian-devel, since I am not sure we
> > are really violating the Policy. Feel free to move it further to
> > debian-policy, if you think it is appropriate.
>
> FWIW, Rafael, at first bl
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> >> > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> >> > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> >> > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> >> > maintenance of gcc 2.95?
> >>
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
> >> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> >> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> >> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> >> main
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
[snip]
> > Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which
> > probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big
> > job), but which are still useful to keep working -
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
>
> > Dave Carrigan wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >>
> >> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> >> > maintenance for etch.
> >
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> > this is unfeasible, and whic
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unacknowledged NMU for > one year, either update or remove:
> >
> >Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > gcccheckerBuild-Depends: gcc-2.95
>
> I recently filed a
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > Malloc debugging, #285685 suggests it is broken for > 300 days now,
> > either update or remove:
> >
> >Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
Dave Carrigan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> > maintenance for etch.
>
> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
>
Hello All,
while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
maintenance for etch.
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:01:26AM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> >Package: ncpfs
> >Severity: serious
> >Version: 2.2.6-2
> >Tags: sid
> >Justification: fails to build from source
> >
> >There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> >
> >Aut
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >>Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
> >>have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
> >>licenses?
> >
> >Because the a
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> [was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
>
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> >Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
> >issue.
> >
>
> This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt
> w
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Nathanael Nerode]
> > I'm thinking of python2.1, which is a key element in some testing
> > transitions.
> > It's out of date on alpha, mips, mipsel, and powerpc -- *yet the buildd logs
> > indicate successful builds on all of them on August 30*. I have already
> > e
Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> Wrong is endian little that knows everyone but.
>
> >Thgir yltcaxe!
>
> eurtub ,iw ta llobynt ydknih fo ehtlihcnerd?
ac si tIirc delldne elpp ssennaire a rof-: .nosa )
Thiemo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
W. Borgert wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:45:26AM +0930, Debonaras Project Lead wrote:
> > The Debonaras project (http://www.debonaras.org) is a group of Linux
> > developers who have created the beginnings of a big-endian ARM (armeb)
> > port of Debian. We have built 2500+ stable packages so
John Hasler wrote:
[snip]
> > Are you saying that if I write a highly original stream of conciousness
> > novel that is judged by the critics to be of abysmal literary quality
> > that I will be denied a copyright in Norway?
>
> Thiemo Seufer writes:
> > If the aver
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Computer programs are exempted from that requirement.
>
> The work needs to have some kind of creative art.
Without any quality judgement, correct. This doesn't leave anything
of interest out.
> Trivial programs are also not
Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> Hi, Andreas:
>
> El Martes, 06 Septiembre 2005 18:20, Andreas Schuldei escribió:
> > * Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-06 17:39:06]:
> > > Which I fail to understand, as the limited rights provided to me by
> > > law should be sufficient for the wiki cont
John Hasler wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> > We have the the same limitation in norwegian law, were the work need to
> > have (the norwegian expression) "verkshøyde", which implies a certain
> > quality level as Andreas puts it.
>
> Do you mean quality or originality?
The amount of creati
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ondrej Sury]
> > I am unsure if such patch would be accepted upstream, since Cyrus
> > runs on more then Linux and *BSD variants.
> >
> > Does Solaris/AIX/whatever(tm) has ?
>
> I believe both SOlaris and AIX got it. It is a POSIX standard header.
Well, rather C99.
Stephane Chauveau wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >
> >The whole thing sounds like the result of hiding _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
> >and _PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_ in newer binutils.
> >
>
> I assume that you mean that the problem the problem is solved by using
>
Stephane Chauveau wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >Andreas Barth wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >>>DEBIAN PACKAGE FROM REPOSITORY:
> >>>11 .rodata 000840cb 0021a180 0021a180 ...
> >>>21 .data 0
Andreas Barth wrote:
[snip]
> > DEBIAN PACKAGE FROM REPOSITORY:
> > 11 .rodata 000840cb 0021a180 0021a180 ...
> > 21 .data 000233c0 003f1d60 003f1d60 ...
> >
> > MY OWN RECOMPILED DEBIAN PACKAGE:
> > 11 .rodata 000a43ad 001f3180 0
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 25, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are some architectures where 2.4 is required, its
> > because of these that it seems that we are stuck with 2.4 for Etch.
> > alpha (installer), m68k (2.6 only works on amiga), s390 (installer),
> > mips, mipsel
> Wh
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> Yet another thread about cogito-vs-git, sorry folks. Just killfile me
> if I've worn out your patience.
>
>
> Still there? Great!
>
>
> Background: I'm the guy who maintains the cogito package. I had a problem
> a while back because my upstream package wanted to
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, please note that posh is not the only shell that lacks support for
> > local. IIRC, it also breaks down under one or more of dash and busybox sh.
> dash supports local, or at least supports it in the way it's u
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20050729T16+0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 7/29/05, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Doesn't that still make N a real variable in memory and does not get
> > > optimized away like enu
Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote:
[snip]
> The releases of Debian could use '9.9.9-9' like it is used for packages.
> This should give enough flexibility. And if the release manager likes to
> jump to 7.3.0.21-5 for etch - why not?
Then 9.9.9 would be the upstream version. I hope Debian releases stay
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
> > Today the EU gets to vote on the same issue. They can elect to have a
> > thriving software industry well placed to replace the now crippled USA
> > as the dominant force in the software industry.
> >
> > Europe, its time to choose.
Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
&g
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> kernel developers.
The gcc version recommended by
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> >>
> >> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds som
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
>
> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
> I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
> seems to indicate thus:
> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701
Ian Murdock wrote:
> On 6/16/05, Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I strongly suspect they're
> > > more interested in your X.org and GNOME 2.10. Given
> > > that, a lot of this divergence seems pretty gratutious to me.
> >
> > Yes, these are both very interesting to users.
> >
> > Wh
Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> * [ 11-04-05 - 09:14 ] Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ISTM that the good reason for writing-from-scratch duplicate
> > functionality is if you have a Better Idea (better data structures,
> > better interfaces, extra functionality, etc, etc) that are so
> > f
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> Auto-removal of orphaned packages from unstable is also bad if it's an
> orphaned library that's still needed (which happens often enough).
Auto-removal of orphaned (build-)dependency leaves sounds useful.
This would also remove orphaned libraries after a while if th
Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Michael K. Edwards:
> >The latest uim FTBFS twice on ARM because of the removal of howl
> >dependencies from gnome packages. The rebuilt gnome-vfs2 still hadn't
> >made it to unstable as of the second try, so the archive wasn't in a
> >state that any package depende
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[snip]
> > m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like
> > to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out
> > of
> > it, but it'd be trivial to replace with i386.
>
> Aren't the first three of these also actively bei
Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
> > For sarge, kernels are built in a two-stage process. First is to create
> > a dsfg-free .deb from the upstream source which contains a source
> > tarball, second is to build kernel images from another (arch-specific)
> > .deb which build-depends on the source .deb. In
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
> > > If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
> > > that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
> > > care of that more easily. That's awesome.
> >
> > We have that already.
>
> Great to hear. Then what is this new plan th
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
> > This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will
> > be
> > streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which
> > could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
>
> You know, you keep saying t
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
> > On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> > > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
> > >
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
> > > instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
> >
Christian Perrier wrote:
[snip]
> This is spring time (at least for half of the world...and probably for
> 90% of Debian world)so take a break, go for a walk in the forest,
> hear the birds singing, get one day off with no mail reading...and
> remember this is all about a hobby for most of us.
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> > Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
> > probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
> > architectures th
Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip]
> So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
> anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like "We use s390
> to host 6231 scientific users on Debian in a manner compatible to the
> workstations they use; the software we use is ..
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> That leaves mips (big-endian), hppa, alpha, and s390. Not so much
> doorstops as space heaters; some people might put ia64 in this
> category too.
FWIW, the distinction between mips and mipsel isn't that clear-cut.
All MIPS CPUs (except the R8000) can run in big
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
