At Fri, 02 May 2003 12:58:41 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:17:32 +0200,
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > What are the steps to be taken to move to i486-linux? Has this to be
> > decided on debian-policy?
> >
> > Would it be ok to drop i386-linux until somebody starts it again?
>
At Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:17:32 +0200,
Matthias Klose wrote:
> What are the steps to be taken to move to i486-linux? Has this to be
> decided on debian-policy?
>
> Would it be ok to drop i386-linux until somebody starts it again?
How about using hwcap? So, libstdc++ (i486-i6/786) put on /usr/lib,
l
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:18:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 10:20:13PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Not linking shared libraries against the other libraries they use also
> > subverts the effectiveness of the shlibs system. Therefore, I believe
> > Policy should b
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:18:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I remembered to have read something to that effect when packaging
> my first shared library, but I cannot find it today.
Indeed. I thought we've had this policy since the libc5 -> libc6
conversion. Did we regress?
Richard Braakma
Hello Debian policy,
For clarification, here the quote from the original mail that start this
thread.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
> to have base-files create the /run directory.
...
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 a
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 10:20:13PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Not linking shared libraries against the other libraries they use also
> subverts the effectiveness of the shlibs system. Therefore, I believe
> Policy should both be explicit about the need for such linking, and
> provide recommend
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> submitter 191511 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#191511: foomatic-bin: builds arch-indep packages as a dependency of the
binary-arch debian/rules target
Changed Bug submitter from Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> submitter 191512 [EMA
(Sorry to follow-up to my own post)
> - All of the x86 compatible Intel processors
> - All of the x86 compatible AMD processors
> - All of the x86 compatible Cyrix processors
> - All of the x86 compatible VIA processors
> - All of the x86 compatible TransMeta processors
> - The National Semicondu
> > I am in favor of dropping the 386 altogether,
I missed the beginning of this discussion (perhaps it was on -devel only?),
so sorry if this has been brought up already. I've got a machine with a
VIA C3 processor, which I believe does not support the "cmov" opcode unlike
most modern x86 impleme
The libc resolver and bind's named are indeed flawed and djbdns
looks like a better way to access DNS. However, resolv.conf
and named.conf handling still needs to be fixed for the sake of
those applications that use the libc resolver.
I've fixed the handling on my own system using the resolvconf
On 01 May 2003 09:46:17 +0200, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 00:22, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> We should focus on /run for now.
> OK, I'm glad you are going to focus on this.
> It looks like you will need to get policy changed before the
> maintainers of the affect
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 00:22, Bill Allombert wrote:
> We should focus on /run for now.
OK, I'm glad you are going to focus on this.
It looks like you will need to get policy changed before the
maintainers of the affected packages will implement /run/.
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 12:22:04AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> For my part, I find the whole resolv.conf concept flawed since
> changing it does not affect running process, so I always use a proxy
> DNS.
Yes, I concur. Not that this is the solution to your current problem,
but you might be int
13 matches
Mail list logo
