Hartmut> The base from infodrom is libc-1.99!! You can get it for a starting
Hartmut> point. But we are under the way to packup a slink base tarball.
Hartmut>
Hartmut> Who was it here? The man with the i386 scripts???
I guess that would be me. Hi, guys.
IMPORTANT: Somebody tell me where to get
> > The ld.so doesn't exist (its part of glibc), but the ldso.deb still
> > exists (But has to be build without ld.so).
>
> Already done IIRC. If so expect it in Incoming this morning.
Think of ldd, it is also in the glibc package, put it out from ld.so.
Hartmut
--
Hartmut Koptein
i think you should wait a bit more before trying some install.
at least until there is a base tarball.
once that is done, boot with a ramdisk, mount the partitions, and then
untar the tarball.
the problem is i don't think you have tar and gzip on the debian
ramdisks. perhaps you have it on the
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 11:42:59AM -0400, Josh Huber wrote:
>
> I could install a minimal redhat and convert, but is there a more direct
> way?
>
Not yet, but we're on the problem - expect a tarball in a few days.
Don't try to convert from redhat unless you are using separate
partitions for deb
Hey, I was looking around for the best way to try out debian linux on my
powerpc box. I've been running the linuxppc build for a while (rh
derivative), and I think it's time for a clean install, so rather than do
the Same Old Thing, I'd rather try out debian...
The thing is, I can't seem to find
> > The ld.so doesn't exist (its part of glibc), but the ldso.deb still
> > exists (But has to be build without ld.so).
> Already done IIRC. If so expect it in Incoming this morning.
Will this remove ldconfig.deb and put ldso.deb instead ?
is what is in the new ldso.deb exactly what was in ldcon
> I'm still trying to decide what to do for a kernel;
Since i don't have lilo working, that will change nothing for me ?
perhaps cause problems with modules ?
should it not be better to let the kernel out of base, sinbce most people
must anyway have a kernel outside of base for first install with
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 12:15:54PM +0200, Brederlow wrote:
> The ld.so doesn't exist (its part of glibc), but the ldso.deb still
> exists (But has to be build without ld.so).
Already done IIRC. If so expect it in Incoming this morning.
> Yep, Bugs are normaly unexpected. :)
> dpkg does a chroot
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 10:19:54AM +0200, Sven wrote:
> > Expect a base tarball very soon
> how long is soon ?
> i don't want a deadline from you just an approximate idea of your timeframe.
>
Unless I have unexpected problems with another base package, in the
next several days. I'm still trying
LUTHER Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
> > Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Hello
> >
> > > is dpkg --root=newroot --force-depends -i packages.deb correct ?
> >
> > Well, better leave out the force-depends.
> >
> How do i explain to dpkg that some packages don't exi
> Expect a base tarball very soon
how long is soon ?
i don't want a deadline from you just an approximate idea of your timeframe.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd be happy to look at a page of things needing done, if there is one.
i don't think there is such a thing.
perhapsmaking some could be a contributioin ?
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 08:47:02PM -0700, Jeffrey Chapman wrote:
> I've looked in on #debian a bit, have followed the list for a couple of
> days, and I'd like to contribute to the PowerPC port, if possible. I
> realize it's probably very much under development, but I admire the i386
> version a
I've looked in on #debian a bit, have followed the list for a couple of
days, and I'd like to contribute to the PowerPC port, if possible. I
realize it's probably very much under development, but I admire the i386
version and would love to see Debian running on Macs and other
PowerPC-based mach
I need some programmer opinions here...
Glibc 2.1 has a compulsive tendency to redefine structs in libc headers
instead of including headers from /usr/include/linux. This causes a
few BIG problems. In particular, take a gander at
/usr/include/sys/termios.h and /usr/include/linux/termbits.h. Not
On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 02:42:36PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 02:08 -0700 1998-07-20, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> >is dpkg --root=newroot --force-depends -i packages.deb correct ?
>
> cd $newroot && dpkg ... (dpkg uses chroot, but it doesn't chdir to where
> the new root is first)
And on top of tha
16 matches
Mail list logo
