On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:13:58PM -0400, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Oh no, don't use dselect...it's evil. If you were using apt then it
> > would have held back gcc/g++ and friends for lack of the new binutils
> > (which is easily obtained from experimental if you want it
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> Should i send you the compile.log for powerpc?
Yes, please. Also, if you have time, run the testsuite from a vanilla
compile like so:
1. unpack the source using dpkg-source
2. type "./configure"
3. type "make"
4. type "make check"
5. send me the .s
> > Chris, any thoughts on a non-experimental upload of binutils in the
> > near future? Powerpc is somewhat broken at present.
>
> It's coming soon (probably this weekend). I have to test the latest out
> with Alpha and ask Sparc to test it also (there have been some issues on
> both that have
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:13:58PM -0400, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Oh no, don't use dselect...it's evil. If you were using apt then it
> > would have held back gcc/g++ and friends for lack of the new binutils
> > (which is easily obtained from experimental if you want it
> Hmm... OK, but I've actually had pretty good luck compiling them (at least I
> was until dselect took me up to gcc 2.95.1 and binutils broke.
It differs very much if you build a package on your own machine or by the
auto-compiler. Often the package builds cleanly for the maintainer but fails
ho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Ok, i will look into that, and check it. I don't have a mach64 though
> so i will not be able to test it, just build the package. Should we
> forward this stuff to debian-x mailing list ?
I have one, so I can test - assuming this is the mach64 code for XF86_FBDev,
not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > The best way is -- as i requested it serveral times -- ask for bad
> > packages and work on them.
>
> So I just need to register with debian and start hacking on packages
> that
> don't work (well, OK _clean_ fixes to packages that don't work). I'll
> do that
> (go
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Chris, any thoughts on a non-experimental upload of binutils in the
> near future? Powerpc is somewhat broken at present.
I just finished packaging 2.9.5.0.12. If you want to try it, you can
obtain the source package via ftp from master in ~chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Oh no, don't use dselect...it's evil. If you were using apt then it
> would have held back gcc/g++ and friends for lack of the new binutils
> (which is easily obtained from experimental if you want it to work).
Does apt have a way to list packages and details? If so I h
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:08:03AM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
>
> > It shouldn't be difficult to modify the buildd package to check with
> > powerpc.debian.org (tervola) to check out packages to build and merge the
> > results back with tervola. Anybody real familiar with buildd and willing
>
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:50:08PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> i just downloaded the vim source package, and will try building it. I suppose
> the binutrils package in experimental is :
>
> binutils_2.9.5.0.10-0.1_powerpc.deb, somewhat older than the current binutils.
> Will apt not complain ab
On powerpc, certainly.
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:08:12PM -0400, John Whitley wrote:
>
> Someone whose attribution got lost in the shuffle wrote:
> > PowerPC is now completely broken, as the old binutils won't accept the
> > target requested by gcc 2.95.1.
>
> On a vaguely related topic, is gc
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Chris, any thoughts on a non-experimental upload of binutils in the
> near future? Powerpc is somewhat broken at present.
It's coming soon (probably this weekend). I have to test the latest out
with Alpha and ask Sparc to test it also (there have
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:08:12PM -0400, John Whitley wrote:
> On a vaguely related topic, is gcc 2.95.1 safe to use for compiling
> kernels yet? I've put my gcc related packages on hold until I can
> find reliable confirmation that kernel building will work with the new
> gcc.
I'm running on ou
John Whitley wrote:
>
> Someone whose attribution got lost in the shuffle wrote:
> > PowerPC is now completely broken, as the old binutils won't accept the
> > target requested by gcc 2.95.1.
>
> On a vaguely related topic, is gcc 2.95.1 safe to use for compiling
> kernels yet? I've put my g
John Whitley writes:
> On a vaguely related topic, is gcc 2.95.1 safe to use for compiling
> kernels yet? I've put my gcc related packages on hold until I can
> find reliable confirmation that kernel building will work with the new
> gcc.
It appears to work for me, -- I'm using the linux-pmac-stab
Someone whose attribution got lost in the shuffle wrote:
> PowerPC is now completely broken, as the old binutils won't accept the
> target requested by gcc 2.95.1.
On a vaguely related topic, is gcc 2.95.1 safe to use for compiling
kernels yet? I've put my gcc related packages on hold until I
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:41:22AM -0400, Kevin Puetz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Outdated packages are bad packages with compiler or packing errors.
> > The xfree package is one of it (it fails for mach64 and two header
> > files that are at the wrong place).
>
> Hmm... OK, but I've actu
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Christian Meder wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:39:27PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Chris, any thoughts on a non-experimental upload of binutils in the
> > near future? Powerpc is somewhat broken at present.
>
> Chris wrote on the debian-alpha list that he's pre
Quick note to everyone;
Effective Friday, September 17th, 1999, this email address will NO
LONGER EXIST. I am relocating within the next week to two weeks to
take a new job, and will be TOTALLY UNAVAILABLE for a period of two
to three days. (Yes, that means pager too, those of you who have it.)
I
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:41:22AM -0400, Kevin Puetz wrote:
>
> --citations from two messages in this thread
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Outdated packages are bad packages with compiler or packing errors.
> > The xfree package is one of it (it fails for mach64 and two header
> > files that a
--citations from two messages in this thread
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Outdated packages are bad packages with compiler or packing errors.
> The xfree package is one of it (it fails for mach64 and two header
> files that are at the wrong place).
Hmm... OK, but I've actually had pretty good luck
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 11:53:05AM +, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
>
> While doing a 'apt-get upgrade dist-upgrade' recently, I got this:
>
> Setting up netstd (3.07-10) ...
> not in group file at /var/lib/dpkg/info/netstd.postinst line 63, chunk
> 5.
> dpkg: error processing netstd (--configure
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 11:49:30AM +, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > we're happy to announce that the Linux User Group Oldenburg is
> > organizing another instance of the traditional m68k hackers meeting in
> > Oldenburg, Germany.
>
>
> Anyone from Sw
While doing a 'apt-get upgrade dist-upgrade' recently, I got this:
Setting up netstd (3.07-10) ...
not in group file at /var/lib/dpkg/info/netstd.postinst line 63, chunk
5.
dpkg: error processing netstd (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2
Errors wer
Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> we're happy to announce that the Linux User Group Oldenburg is
> organizing another instance of the traditional m68k hackers meeting in
> Oldenburg, Germany.
Anyone from Switzerland going and able and willing to take me with him/her?
:)
Michel
--
Ev
Josh Huber wrote:
>
> I noticed that debian starts an x font server, but for some reason I can't
> get it to use the server:
>
> [snip]
I'm sorry, I can't help you, but be careful with xfs anyway. It regularly
locked my X server after one or two hours of normal use.
Michel
--
Do I look li
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:23:46PM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > > > Should i upload the X package i will build, or will the autobuilder
> > > > take care of it ?
> > >
> > > Upload it.
> >
> > Ok, i will do it. What is the problem with the mach64 stuff ? any relation
> > with
> > the sparc
> > > Should i upload the X package i will build, or will the autobuilder
> > > take care of it ?
> >
> > Upload it.
>
> Ok, i will do it. What is the problem with the mach64 stuff ? any relation
> with
> the sparc mach64 stuff recently added to the package ?
Yes, it is a problem with Ben's pat
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:44:24PM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > Should i upload the X package i will build, or will the autobuilder
> > take care of it ?
>
> Upload it.
Ok, i will do it. What is the problem with the mach64 stuff ? any relation with
the sparc mach64 stuff recently added to th
> Should i upload the X package i will build, or will the autobuilder
> take care of it ?
Upload it.
> Also i noticed the following bug too :
>
> bahs$ vim
> BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-runtime.c: 67: fixup: Assertion
> `((reloc->r_info) & 0xff) == 21' failed!
>
> Is it the same bug, or sh
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:56:14AM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
>
> > I was wondering how / offering to build PPC binary packages from source
> > packages that are new or updated, since the PPC binaries seem to be (at
> > least
> > sometimes) dated. I don't know what kind of scheme is used to
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:14:05AM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > I upgraded gcc to version 2.95.1-2 and I cannot build any binaries.
> >
> > This is error messages.
> > ---
> > /usr/bin/ld: unrecognised emulation mode: elf32ppclinux
> > Supported emulations: elf32ppc
>
> It shouldn't be difficult to modify the buildd package to check with
> powerpc.debian.org (tervola) to check out packages to build and merge the
> results back with tervola. Anybody real familiar with buildd and willing
> to modify it? I think James Troup wrote it...
Roman Hodek is the main a
> I was wondering how / offering to build PPC binary packages from source
> packages that are new or updated, since the PPC binaries seem to be (at least
> sometimes) dated. I don't know what kind of scheme is used to track such
> rebuilds, or if additional CPU juice is really needed (maybe I j
> Judging by the number of deb packages that compile fine but are out-of-date
> in the PPC tree, is more CPU horsepower needed to auto-build?
No need, one auto-builder is enough.
> I don't know what the protocol for this is, but I would be more than willing
> to run a debian-compiler instead of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> alright. in.telnetd is annoying me.
> When I try to telnet into my machine, all I get on the client side is
> "telnetd: All network ports in use."
> however, when I run in.telnetd on console as root, I get the message:
> # in.telnetd in.telnetd: getpeername: Socket opera
I noticed that debian starts an x font server, but for some reason I can't get
it to use the server:
using either FontPath "tcp/localhost:7100"
or FontPath "unix/:-1"
neither work, and give me:
_FontTransSocketUNIXConnect: Can't connect: errno = 111
failed to set default font path 'unix/:-1'
Fat
alright. in.telnetd is annoying me.
When I try to telnet into my machine, all I get on the client side is
"telnetd: All network ports in use."
however, when I run in.telnetd on console as root, I get the message:
# in.telnetd
in.telnetd: getpeername: Socket operation on non-socket
#
Does anyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Sure. I was just mentioning it in case someone decided more CPU juice
> *were* needed (whereupon I'd get some more machines or at least some
> more RAM)
> BTW, how easy is cross-compiling packages?
cross-compiling, or recompiling (ie, making PPC packages on x86 or maki
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Kevin Puetz wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I was not asking for access to a
> PPC. I'm not a developer, though I may become one in the future once I'm all
Sure. I was just mentioning it in case someone decided more CPU juice
*were* needed (whereupon I'
41 matches
Mail list logo
