On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:27:52AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> precisely. this is another, (clearer or at least different) way of
> stating what i've been advocating. by having such a delta-maintaining
> tool, complex sets of deltas can be maintained indefinitely, or in
> fact c
[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution
involving some Debian gcc changes. ]
Hi!
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 12:27:30 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Trying to kick the dust a bit as having the triplet "in the air" is
> kind of an unhappy situation for armhf :-)
I think it
Hello,
I'd like to seek feedback about what kind of upgrades dpkg should support
with multi-arch packages.
dpkg treats foo:native and foo:all like the same package and it's thus
possible to upgrade foo_1.0_all to foo_2.0_ and vice-versa.
However if you have installed foo_1.0_, you can't upgrade
On 18.02.2011 11:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution
involving some Debian gcc changes. ]
The armhf patch for gcc looks ok, however I would like to see this better
addressed in Linaro and/or upstream.
Yes but x86 goes to the other
Hello everybody, this is my first post to this list.
Some time ago I wanted to upgrade an old laptop (Toshiba T4900CT,
from 1994) from Debian Etch to Debian Lenny. Unfortunately dpkg
(resp. apt-get or aptitude) was running out of memory. The maximum
amount of RAM for this laptop is limited to 40 M
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Martin Klaiber wrote:
> Hello everybody, this is my first post to this list.
>
> Some time ago I wanted to upgrade an old laptop (Toshiba T4900CT,
> from 1994) from Debian Etch to Debian Lenny. Unfortunately dpkg
> (resp. apt-get or aptitude) was running out of memory. Th
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:30:19PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.02.2011 11:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution
> > involving some Debian gcc changes. ]
> The armhf patch for gcc looks ok, however I would like to see this
> better
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:31:18PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I'd like to seek feedback about what kind of upgrades dpkg should support
> with multi-arch packages.
> dpkg treats foo:native and foo:all like the same package and it's thus
> possible to upgrade foo_1.0_all to foo_2.0_ and vice-
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So yeah, that seems ok to me, but I guess you're not convinced or you
> wouldn't have asked. :) What other way do you see this working? Should
> dpkg auto-remove multiarch packages when an upgrade to _all is requested?
> That seems very inconsistent wi
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 08:37:05PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Upgrading multiple M-A: same to a single foo_2.0_all should definitely be
> forbidden though. But the opposite foo_1.0_all -> M-A: same
> foo_2.0_ ?
I think the applicable principle here is KISS. You could allow dpkg to
upgrade f
Hi Guillem,
Thanks for letting us know your thoughts.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:13:11AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> * The assumption that each GNU triplet denotes a different ABI is so
> entrenched in the GNU build system, that we have things like the
> following all over the place to prop
11 matches
Mail list logo
