On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:03:41PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> >Can I build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 as an m68k.deb or does that conflict
> >with other arches?
> >Do I need a separate kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k package? m68k is doing
> >fine
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Can I build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 as an m68k.deb or does that conflict
with other arches?
Do I need a separate kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k package? m68k is doing
fine without any 2.6 kernel headers so far, the buildds use a generic k-h
package.
I
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:08:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:52:19PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> > I have a couple of questions regarding kernel-headers. The 2.6 packages for
> > m68k do not build kernel-headers yet, but they will once I upload 2.6.11.
>
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 09:10:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> >
> > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)
> > This is arch-specific headers package containing all the common
> > headers/configs/Makefiles, etc.
>
> In the thre
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:41:48PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:08:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:52:19PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a couple of questions regarding kernel-headers. The 2.6 packages
> >
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:52:19PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 09:10:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > >
> > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)
> > > This is arch-specific headers package con
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> Hi Sven,
> >Any coments on the above ? I think it is sound, and it covers every
> >existing
> >case, while in many cases there will be only one subarch per arch, and many
> >flavours. Maybe we need to rename stuff, but this has worked
Hi Sven,
On Sun, 15 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
The first level is the arch level, and we are all aware of what this means.
Notice though that at least for powerpc, but probably for sparc and others
too, the 64bit variant is not considered a different arch, in opposition to
the x86/amd64 situation
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 05:30:46AM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> Author: jurij-guest
> Date: 2005-05-15 05:30:44 + (Sun, 15 May 2005)
> New Revision: 3113
>
> Added:
>branches/kernel-image-2.6.11/arch/i386/config.default
> Modified:
>branches/kernel-image-2.6.11/README
>branches/ker
9 matches
Mail list logo
