On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:21:39AM -0400, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 10:02 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > But yes, a. is a major undertaking, and i was hoping of some automated
> > method
> > for generating the 64 bit stuff, maybe even in the same package. Needs some
> > expe
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 10:02 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> But yes, a. is a major undertaking, and i was hoping of some automated method
> for generating the 64 bit stuff, maybe even in the same package. Needs some
> experimenting though.
Why not just deal with this in an on-demand manner? I.e. us
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:55:35PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 8/18/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That brings us to the next step, what is the best way to get most libraries
> > to
> > build 64bit packages ? This would need some extensive change in the
> > packaging
> >
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:58 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 8/19/05, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 22:55 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > > On 8/18/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That brings us to the next step, what is the b
On 8/19/05, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 22:55 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > On 8/18/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > That brings us to the next step, what is the best way to get most
> > > libraries to
> > > build 64bit packages
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 22:55 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 8/18/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That brings us to the next step, what is the best way to get most libraries
> > to
> > build 64bit packages ? This would need some extensive change in the
> > packaging
> > stuff p
On 8/18/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That brings us to the next step, what is the best way to get most libraries to
> build 64bit packages ? This would need some extensive change in the packaging
> stuff probably.
As you know, there are two ways:
a. Major hacking for each and eve
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:45:56PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:30:33 +1000,
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Yeah, things are not as fast as we hope, but we are a volunteer
> > > organisation,
> > > so we will see.
> > >
> > > But if in a month or so NPTL is not yet
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:30:33 +1000,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Yeah, things are not as fast as we hope, but we are a volunteer
> > organisation,
> > so we will see.
> >
> > But if in a month or so NPTL is not yet enabled, we will go and ask them,
> > but
> > the current way is to make sma
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:30:33PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > You can't cross link. You need 2 sets of libs unfortunately.
>
> Too bad. This mean rebuilding all libs or most of them for ppc64.
Not as bad as it seems. On IRIX which has even t
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:30:33PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Yeah, things are not as fast as we hope, but we are a volunteer
> > organisation,
> > so we will see.
> >
> > But if in a month or so NPTL is not yet enabled, we will go and ask them,
> > but
> > the current way is to
> Yeah, things are not as fast as we hope, but we are a volunteer organisation,
> so we will see.
>
> But if in a month or so NPTL is not yet enabled, we will go and ask them, but
> the current way is to make small incremental steps, i guess.
Turning on NPTL is a one liner or such in the package
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 09:13:28AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Oh, and also, we still miss NPTL in the glibc build, but i guess as we are
> > moving forward, this will come soon now.
>
> I've been told that for 2 years... strangely, back then, the problem was
> freezing for testing
> Oh, and also, we still miss NPTL in the glibc build, but i guess as we are
> moving forward, this will come soon now.
I've been told that for 2 years... strangely, back then, the problem was
freezing for testing. Now we have an up to date glibc, it's still not
enabled for _NO_ good reason, and
14 matches
Mail list logo
