Hello,
On Wednesday, 6. March 2002 00:41, Chris Howells wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anybody successfully got objprelink working on woody? When I try to
> compile qt-copy, make segfaults
Using sid and gcc 3.0.4 with DEBIAN_BUILDARCH=athlon, Qt (qt-copy) works fine
now with objprelink (I tested sever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 17 January 2002 23:06, Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
> BTW this is sort of offtopic now, but what is the current state of
> the objprelink kde and qt optimizations?
Don't use objprelink, it's buggy. I'm on the KMail mailing list and
there ar
On Sunday 16 September 2001 09:15, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work.
>
> What an asshole you are I swear. I work my ass off to provide the proper
> and most stable/secure KDE environment for Debian and you start being a
> prick. Screw you! You shou
* Maximilian Reiss [Sunday 16 September 2001 07:39 ] :
> With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work.
Hey man what's your problem!
I hope that it was a typo. Otherwise you are definitely an
Jerk ! The Debian packaging for KDE is the best ever
you have no idea of what's involved and
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 10:15:45AM -0600, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:39:23PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > > yes...that's a side ef
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:39:23PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > >
> > > So does this mean package maintainer
Please, please, read the netiquette, and stop including the whole message
when replying. My mousewheel is almost broken because of this :)
To be on-topic : I didn't noticed any difference betweeen packages created
with and without objprelink. Hmm, it is maybe my computer's fault?
--
Putz Ákos
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 13:46 schrieb Stephan Jaensch:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:39, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > > >
> > > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > > > because it's causing policy
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:39, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > >
> > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > > because it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check
> > > slightly broader than polic
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> >
> > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > because it's causing policy violations?
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:57:12PM -0400, Jason Boxman wrote:
> On Saturday 15 September 2001 06:03 pm, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > qt-x11 (2:2.3.1-13) unstable; urgency=low
> > > .
> > >* Due to better sense don't use ob
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
>
> So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink because
> it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check slightly broader
> than policy and objprelink
On Saturday 15 September 2001 06:03 pm, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > qt-x11 (2:2.3.1-13) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >* Due to better sense don't use objprelink..wait for the proper
> > prelinker stuff to show up
> >
> > Doe
> yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink because
it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check slightly broader
than policy and objprelink within the margin of error?
Ben.
yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:17:12PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Hi.. I'm building packages using objprelink and getting lintian errors
> similar to the following:
>
> E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/libnoatunluckytag.so.0.0.0
>
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
>
> qt-x11 (2:2.3.1-13) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* Due to better sense don't use objprelink..wait for the proper prelinker
> stuff to show up
>
> Does this means it is compiled _without_ objprelink?
Well I would htin
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Jens Benecke wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:34:32PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > (I have a heap of older machines to maintain (P-233 mostly) and they
> > > are just barely useable with KDE2. This should make a lot of difference
> > > if it works.
> >
> > hehe, you probabl
On Thursday 09 August 2001 20:34, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:43:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Ratzka wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > > For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does
> > > this mean to you? Well on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> well, 64MB is it. Actually, my laptop with 64MB wasn't useable very
> well. (it was running ONLY KDE, before login a 'ps axuw' was 10-12
> processes, nothing big). But it started swapping at once and
> compiling something while in KDE wasn't realisti
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Jens Benecke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:36:14PM -0600, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > Ok folks,
> >
> > I know at least one person is interested in this as he's been beating
> > me up over this for a week. :) So...here's an update and info.
>
> I guess we are all
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:43:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Ratzka wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
>
> > For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this
> > mean to you? Well on average a 20%-30% increase in application startup
> > time.
Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this
> mean to you? Well on average a 20%-30% increase in application startup
> time.
Increase in startup time? I hope not :-P.
--
Wolfgang Ratzka
Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
y> Ok folks,
>
> I know at least one person is interested in this as he's been beating
> me up over this for a week. :) So...here's an update and info.
>
Wondering who this was? *g*
> I *just* found the problem I have been fighti
23 matches
Mail list logo
