On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:41:26PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em S?b, 2006-03-18 ?s 23:17 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> > Yes. However, I think that 'setting up buildd' is the least difficult
> > of those tasks. It is by far more difficult to produce patches for all
> > 'standard debian pack
Em Sáb, 2006-03-18 às 23:17 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> Yes. However, I think that 'setting up buildd' is the least difficult
> of those tasks. It is by far more difficult to produce patches for all
> 'standard debian packages' that make them first of all, cross-compile
> correctly, and (onl
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This is a call for help :). If you want to
Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> > > Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > > >This is a call for help :). If you want to help, just take over the task
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> > Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > >This is a call for help :). If you want to help, just take over the task
> > >of setting a uclibc-i386 buildd up.
> > What is the need for buildd
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:39:41PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > >[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
>
> > This one looks dead.
>
> I understand we live in a gentoo-driven 0-day bleeding edge culture, but
> this is quite spectacular deducment. SLIND was published exactly two
> weeks ago in F
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:02:18PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> > >>Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure f
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> >>Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
> >>additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I alre
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 às 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >This is a call for help :). If you want to help, just take over the task
> >of setting a uclibc-i386 buildd up.
> What is the need for buildd?
Basically, what is described in
http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/se
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
> additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already
> have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants...
I hope toolchain-source mai
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 às 15:04 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Also, looking at
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=i386-uclibc
I see only binutils and gcc. In the other thread "cross-compiling Debian
packages"
I already mentioned that binutils and gcc
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 às 15:04 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> Also, looking at
> http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=i386-uclibc
> I see only binutils and gcc. In the other thread "cross-compiling Debian
> packages"
> I already mentioned that binutils and gcc are trivial to
Riku Voipio wrote:
[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
This one looks dead.
I understand we live in a gentoo-driven 0-day bleeding edge culture, but
this is quite spectacular deducment. SLIND was published exactly two
weeks ago in FOSDEM and it is already dead?
...and
> >[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
> This one looks dead.
I understand we live in a gentoo-driven 0-day bleeding edge culture, but
this is quite spectacular deducment. SLIND was published exactly two
weeks ago in FOSDEM and it is already dead?
>> ...and i386-uclibc[3] alioth project, wh
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
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Pjotr Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
because dpkg-arc
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Not being a dpkg maintainer, I find this to be a gratuitous change for
no good reason (other than "it looks a bit better"). I don't see what
point it would serve.
May
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >Not being a dpkg maintainer, I find this to be a gratuitous change for
> >no good reason (other than "it looks a bit better"). I don't see what
> >point it would serve.
> Maybe the ability to run Debian on
Pjotr Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Riku Voipio wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
>>> rather that i386-hurd?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>because dpkg-architecture has a line like this:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already
have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants...
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
> additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already
> have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants...
Not being a dpkg maintainer
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-13 00:04]:
I am adding some additional archs to my local installation like
i386-uclibc, which makes hurd-i386 an exception to the rule of
having the CPU arch first and the OS name the next.
There's also kfr
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-13 00:04]:
> > I am adding some additional archs to my local installation like
> > i386-uclibc, which makes hurd-i386 an exception to the rule of
> > having the CPU arch first and the OS name the next.
> There's also kfreebsd-{i386,amd64}, so wh
Pjotr Kourzanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am adding some additional archs to my local installation like i386-uclibc,
> which makes hurd-i386 an exception to the rule of having the CPU arch first
> and the OS name the next.
There's also kfreebsd-{i386,amd64}, so why don't you use uclibc-i386?
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
because dpkg-architecture has a line like this:
return "$os-$cpu";
older dpkg (of sarge age) was more flexib
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2006-03-12 kello 15:49 +0100, Peter Kourzanov kirjoitti:
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
I guess it just happened to seem like a good name at the time. Why, is
there a problem with the name? Does it m
Florian Ludwig wrote:
Peter Kourzanov wrote:
Dear DDs,
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
Is there any rule that says that the OS name should come before CPU
name?
Is there any rule that says that the architecture should came before
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
> Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
> rather that i386-hurd?
because dpkg-architecture has a line like this:
return "$os-$cpu";
older dpkg (of sarge age) was more flexible, so likely the
hurd na
su, 2006-03-12 kello 15:49 +0100, Peter Kourzanov kirjoitti:
> Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
> rather that i386-hurd?
I guess it just happened to seem like a good name at the time. Why, is
there a problem with the name? Does it matter? Debian architecture na
Peter Kourzanov wrote:
Dear DDs,
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
Is there any rule that says that the OS name should come before CPU name?
Is there any rule that says that the architecture should came before the
OS name?
Pjotr
Dear DDs,
Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
rather that i386-hurd?
Is there any rule that says that the OS name should come before CPU name?
Pjotr Kourzanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
31 matches
Mail list logo
