Hi,
On Wed May 30, 2012 at 22:29:32 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> >> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list
Hi,
> On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
>> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
>> architectures for the Wheezy release.
>>
>> Comments on / additions
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> > we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
> >
Hi,
On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
> architectures for the Wheezy release.
>
> Comments on / additions and co
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:44 -0500, Patrick Baggett wrote:
> > I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the
> > changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative
> > performance implications, and this
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:44 -0500, Patrick Baggett wrote:
> I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the
> changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative
> performance implications, and this is true for both Solaris and Linux
> and not recommended by anyo
Adam,
I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the
changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative
performance implications, and this is true for both Solaris and Linux and
not recommended by anyone. A 64-bit userland is barely available for Linux
-- just
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 01:50:04PM +0200, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:19:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >> Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
> >> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qu
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:19:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
>> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html would be appreciated,
>> as would any other information you thi
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:19:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html would be appreciated,
> as would any other information you think is relevant to helping us
> determine sparc's status for
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html wou
11 matches
Mail list logo
