Hi,
I use a Debian trixie container for testing using amd64 architecture.
I use cross compilation to arm64.
When I try to create the container I get this error:
libgssapi-krb5-2 : Breaks: libgssapi-krb5-2:arm64 (!= 1.20.1-5+b1) but
1.20.1-5 is to be installed
Looking on https://packages.debian.
On Jo, 14 ian 21, 10:38:23, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:18:17AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This might be of interest for subscribers of debian-user.
> >
> > Please note the freeze policy link should (obviously) have bullseye in
> > the URL instead of
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:18:17AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This might be of interest for subscribers of debian-user.
>
> Please note the freeze policy link should (obviously) have bullseye in
> the URL instead of buster.
[...]
Hey, thanks!
What you did is a really nice idea
bing to it.
- Forwarded message from Paul Gevers -
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:18:45 +0100
From: Paul Gevers
To: Debian Devel Announce
Subject: bits from the release team: bullseye freeze started and its
architectures
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/7
Hi,
My friend and I want to cross-compile a software from source code (not a
Debian package) to pretty much all of the supported Debian architectures on
a single machine.
We installed Debian Jessie amd64 on the build machine and were able to
build amd64 binaries with no surprises.
The next task
2014/08/10 20:30 "Martin T" :
>
> >> how compatible are drivers on ports for different CPU architectures,
> >> e.g. I have a USB HSDPA modem which works great on Wheezy port for x86
> >> architecture, but can I expect it to work on Wheezy port for ARM?
&
Martin T wrote:
>>> how compatible are drivers on ports for different CPU architectures,
>>> e.g. I have a USB HSDPA modem which works great on Wheezy port for
>>> x86 architecture, but can I expect it to work on Wheezy port for
>>> ARM?
>> If your ARM
>> how compatible are drivers on ports for different CPU architectures,
>> e.g. I have a USB HSDPA modem which works great on Wheezy port for x86
>> architecture, but can I expect it to work on Wheezy port for ARM?
>
> If your ARM platform's USB driver works, then ye
> how compatible are drivers on ports for different CPU architectures,
> e.g. I have a USB HSDPA modem which works great on Wheezy port for x86
> architecture, but can I expect it to work on Wheezy port for ARM?
If your ARM platform's USB driver works, then yes, you can expect
Hi,
how compatible are drivers on ports for different CPU architectures,
e.g. I have a USB HSDPA modem which works great on Wheezy port for x86
architecture, but can I expect it to work on Wheezy port for ARM? Can
one expect the same options(modprobe parameters) for drivers on all
platforms? What
fic purposes.)
>
> However, I have the current package version installed for two different
> architectures (amd64, which is native, and i386), and one of the updated
> packages is updated only for amd64; the i386 package is still at the old
> version. As a result, I can't install t
have the current package version installed for two different
architectures (amd64, which is native, and i386), and one of the updated
packages is updated only for amd64; the i386 package is still at the old
version. As a result, I can't install the updated amd64 package without
removing the i38
that distributions of the
> OS for a variety of different architectures exist:
>
> [alpha] [amd64] [arm] [hppa] [i386] [ia64] [m68k] [mips] [mipsel]
> [powerpc] [sparc] [s390]
>
>
>
> My question is this:
>
> What degree of common files would exist betw
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>My question is this:
>
>What degree of common files would exist between all or certain sub groups of
>these different architectures?
There is quite an overlap - all the *_all.deb files are common from
one arch to the next.
>
distributions of
the OS for a variety of different architectures exist:
[alpha] [amd64] [arm] [hppa] [i386] [ia64] [m68k] [mips] [mipsel]
[powerpc] [sparc] [s390]
My question is this:
Ok I'll have a stab at this :)
What degree of common files would exist between all or certain sub
g
variety of different architectures exist:
[alpha] [amd64] [arm] [hppa] [i386] [ia64] [m68k] [mips] [mipsel] [powerpc]
[sparc] [s390]
My question is this:
What degree of common files would exist between all or certain sub groups of
these different architectures?
Would there be enough in
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 03:03:18PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:42:30AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:55:39PM +, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > It gives the information -- but not in a dumbed-down enough format for
> > > me. For example, nowhe
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:42:30AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:55:39PM +, Adam Funk wrote:
> > It gives the information -- but not in a dumbed-down enough format for
> > me. For example, nowhere on that page is the word "Xeon" mentioned,
> > so if I bought a Xeon com
On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have a wide range of choices. You can go pure 32 bit and install the
> standard i386 Debian, you can go mixed and have a 64 bit kernel an 32 bit
> user space or you can go pure 64 bit. I've never tried a mixed system but
> apparently
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:20:59 +
Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-02-23, Justin Guerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> It gives the information -- but not in a dumbed-down enough format for
> >> me. For example, nowhere on that page is the word "Xeon" mentioned,
> >> so if I bo
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:55:39PM +, Adam Funk wrote:
> It gives the information -- but not in a dumbed-down enough format for
> me. For example, nowhere on that page is the word "Xeon" mentioned,
> so if I bought a Xeon computer, for example, I wouldn't know from that
> page alone to install
On 2006-02-23, Justin Guerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It gives the information -- but not in a dumbed-down enough format for
>> me. For example, nowhere on that page is the word "Xeon" mentioned,
>> so if I bought a Xeon computer, for example, I wouldn't know from that
>> page alone to insta
On Thursday 23 February 2006 11:55, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-02-23, Justin Guerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is there a table anywhere that lists processors by their common names
> >> and tells which kernels will work on which ones?
> >
> > I hope the list on http://www.debian.org/ports/ giv
On 2006-02-23, Justin Guerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there a table anywhere that lists processors by their common names
>> and tells which kernels will work on which ones?
> I hope the list on http://www.debian.org/ports/ gives you the information
> you seek. If not, what is missing?
On Monday 20 February 2006 03:10, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is there a table anywhere that lists processors by their common names
> and tells which kernels will work on which ones?
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
I hope the list on http://www.debian.or
On 2/20/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes. The Althon 64 fully supports i386 through some fancy on chip emulation
> > that is as fast as a native 32 bit chip (I think all the 64 bit processors
> > you mention do this but don'
On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. The Althon 64 fully supports i386 through some fancy on chip emulation
> that is as fast as a native 32 bit chip (I think all the 64 bit processors
> you mention do this but don't quite me on that).
So I could do that by booting a no
On 2/17/06, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 17 February 2006 14:42, Adam Funk wrote:> On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Having said that there is not really any advantage to running the 64 bit
> > port as there isn't any software that makes use of the extra
On Friday 17 February 2006 14:42, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Having said that there is not really any advantage to running the 64 bit
> > port as there isn't any software that makes use of the extra features and
> > the Althon 64 in 32 bit mode is
On 2006-02-17, Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having said that there is not really any advantage to running the 64 bit port
> as there isn't any software that makes use of the extra features and the
> Althon 64 in 32 bit mode is just as fast.
Does that mean I can just install Debian
On Friday 17 February 2006 11:02, Adam Funk wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a new home computer soon and am considering Xeon,
> Athlon 64 and Opteron 64, but I'm not sure about the relevant Debian
> architectures, ia64 and amd64. Which one applies to which of those
> pr
On Friday 17 February 2006 10:02, Adam Funk wrote:
> I'm planning to buy a new home computer soon and am considering Xeon,
> Athlon 64 and Opteron 64, but I'm not sure about the relevant Debian
> architectures, ia64 and amd64. Which one applies to which of those
> pr
I'm planning to buy a new home computer soon and am considering Xeon,
Athlon 64 and Opteron 64, but I'm not sure about the relevant Debian
architectures, ia64 and amd64. Which one applies to which of those
processors?
I'm also concerned about the potential shortage of 64-bit
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:41:42 +0100, Mauro Darida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 at 09:27:55 +, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> >
> > * ia64 - Intel's 64-bit Itanium series of workstations. Not doing too
> > well in the marketplace.
> >
> Do you mean we will have a debian sarge for
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 at 09:27:55 +, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>
> * ia64 - Intel's 64-bit Itanium series of workstations. Not doing too
> well in the marketplace.
>
Do you mean we will have a debian sarge for Itanium processors ?!
Saluti, Mauro.
--
On this laptop no Windows system survives and L
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:27:55 -0500, Kevin B. McCarty
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * alpha - Digital (DEC) workstations, usually originally running VMS,
> > although there was a Windows NT port to this for a while. Pretty much
> > legacy
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:27:55 -0500, Kevin B. McCarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * alpha - Digital (DEC) workstations, usually originally running VMS,
> although there was a Windows NT port to this for a while. Pretty much
> legacy-only now.
And let's not forget OSF1/DigitalUnix/Tru64, not to me
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Mauro Darida wrote:
I cannot quite understand which machines debian "architectures" are
referring to. Of course I know that x-86 are common pcs, sparc are sun
workstations, but others are quite cryptic to me. Anyone willing to
translate into non-develope
Mauro Darida wrote:
> I cannot quite understand which machines debian "architectures" are
> referring to. Of course I know that x-86 are common pcs, sparc are sun
> workstations, but others are quite cryptic to me. Anyone willing to
> translate into non-developer language??
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:40:33 +0100, Mauro Darida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cannot quite understand which machines debian "architectures" are
> referring to. Of course I know that x-86 are common pcs, sparc are sun
> workstations, but others are quite cryptic
I cannot quite understand which machines debian "architectures" are
referring to. Of course I know that x-86 are common pcs, sparc are sun
workstations, but others are quite cryptic to me. Anyone willing to
translate into non-developer language??
Saluti, Mauro.
--
On this laptop no Wind
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:02:33 -0500
Meredith Richmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how do i know what architecture my computer is?
>
> my computer is an acer notebook P1 (i sent a previous email saying it
> was a 486, but i was wrong)
> i would like to make sure linux is compatible with my compu
how do i know what architecture my computer is?
my computer is an acer notebook P1 (i sent a previous email saying it
was a 486, but i was wrong)
i would like to make sure linux is compatible with my computer before i
change over but i find this a little confusing, so any other tidbits of
info
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:41:37PM -0800, Torrin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 05:21:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number
> > of things. It's not worth the added complexity trying to do it for
> > everything.
>
> Which small
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 05:21:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number
> of things. It's not worth the added complexity trying to do it for
> everything.
>
Which small number of things is that? We got libc from 1 post. What
else?
-
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:13:18AM +0100, Holger Rauch wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> > > As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this
> > > thread), the one big inconvenience is that "apt-get upgrade
On Sunday 27 October 2002 16:16, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number
> > > of things.
> >
> > This is true for applications in the following wording "you get
Hi Colin!
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> [...]
> > As to compiling from deb sources (some else mentioned it in this
> > thread), the one big inconvenience is that "apt-get upgrade" will
> > overwrite your optimized program as soo
On Sunday 27 October 2002 20:16, Justin Ryan wrote:
> > you are also assuming Debian devels have access to such hardware. I am
> > personally still using a pII 400. Our users tend to have better hardware
> > than we do these days.
>
> IANAD, but afaik all source packages are/can be built on all a
> you are also assuming Debian devels have access to such hardware. I am
> personally still using a pII 400. Our users tend to have better hardware
> than we do these days.
IANAD, but afaik all source packages are/can be built on all available
archs using debian's machines.. One maintainer me
ish, partially because we *really* don't want
fracturing of single architectures like we have seen in Red Hat,
Mandrake, etc.
We are NOT Red Hat.
--
Baloo
msg09565/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:49:04PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more
They're not incompatible architectures, and the performance gained
with most programs compiling specifically for those CPUs is epsilon.
This has been d
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number
> > of things.
>
> This is true for applications in the following wording "you get most
> of the speed increase by optimizing small parts of the p
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:43:02PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number
> > of things.
>
> This is true for applications in the following wording "you get most of the
> speed increase by optimizing small parts of t
Colin Watson wrote:
> You get most of the speed increases by recompiling a very small number
> of things.
This is true for applications in the following wording "you get most of the
speed increase by optimizing small parts of the program". For something like
Debian however, you can't possibly
Jamin W. Collins said:
> Looks like you're attempting to exclude the sections and files that you
> don't want to mirror from the official archive, rather than only
> including the files that you need. What tool are you using to
> create/update the archive? I'm using debmirror and a simple contro
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:03:56PM -0800, nate wrote:
> gumby:/raid/debian/archive# du -s -h
> 24G .
(snip)
> I believe its a complete archive, because I've never had any trouble
> installing any packages or building things from source.
Looks more than complete based on what I have here
:/mir
Jamin W. Collins said:
> Looks like your figure is quite inaccurate to me. The CD images alone
> are ~4.7 Gig.
gumby:/raid/debian/archive# du -s -h
24G .
that is for the main debian archive only(not security) trees:
EXCLUDE="--exclude binary-alpha/ --exclude binary-arm --exclude binary-m68k
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:56:18AM -0800, nate wrote:
> and it wouldn't be a bit more space, it'd be a LOT more space. running
> my own debian mirror for my former company just i386 for testing and
> stable last I checked was nearly 25GB(including source).
Might want to check those figures again
Oleg said:
> Hi
>
> Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more
> space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not
> increase (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra
> maintenance in most cases will be limited t
On Sunday 27 October 2002 08:49, Oleg wrote:
> Hi
>
> Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more
> space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase
> (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:49:04PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more
> space will be used on Debian mirrors,
We're losing mirrors due to disk space concerns as it is.
> but the bandwidth will not increase (unles
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:49:04PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> Hi
>
> Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more
> space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase
> (unless more people start using Debian) and the extra
Hi
Why doesn't Debian add two more architectures: P4 and Athlon4? A bit more
space will be used on Debian mirrors, but the bandwidth will not increase
(unless more people start using Debian) and the extra maintenance in most
cases will be limited to CPU-specific compiler options. The ob
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:59:38AM -0600, John Schmidt wrote:
> Now for the question, for multi-architecture builds, is it proper to
> edit the control file and delete entries. This just doesn't seem
> right, but I couldn't see any other way to get a successful build.
> This is the first time
Hi,
I have downloaded the source for kde 3.0.4 (debian version of things)
and am in the process of compiling it on a powerpc sarge box. The
precompiled debs are available only for i386. I use dpkg-buildpackage
to build things and for the most part things go well. The only caveat
is that in
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:28:48AM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Also, files installed has list in /var/lib/dpkg/info though these are non
> conffile files.
>
> That's all I know ;-)
$ dpkg -S installed-filename-pattern
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:02:00PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> See subject. I need a listing of all files in all packages of all
> current distributions for all architectures of Debian.
>
> Failing that, all architectures for Woody.
>
> I believe this is possible throug
See subject. I need a listing of all files in all packages of all
current distributions for all architectures of Debian.
Failing that, all architectures for Woody.
I believe this is possible through package lists, I just need the
explicit files to get and/or commands to run.
--
Karsten M
Hi,
Is it normal for the same distro (in this case, woody) on different
architectures (in this case, i386 and SPARC) to be different?
I got caught out rather severely today when I installed the sendmail
package from woody on a SPARC box, and then on an i386 box.
On the SPARC box, sendmail
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Erdmut Pfeifer wrote:
|
| This A20-line crap rates as one of the most insane ideas ever put forth
| in the whole history of PCs. Anyone who doesn't know already may want to
| read up a little on what it's about, for example here
|
| http://www.phys.uu.nl/
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 11:00:51AM +, Emile Schwarz wrote:
> [O.T.] Architectures
> Do someone can explain to me what could be O.T. ?
Off-topic - not an appropriate topic for this list - because it's about
hardware, not Debian.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tryi
[O.T.] Architectures
Do someone can explain to me what could be O.T. ?
TIA (Thanks In Advance),
Emile,
France
Hi,
I'm interested in the pros and cons of various hardware platforms for
my next home system. I certainly don't want to start a flame war,
URL's would be great.
This box will be connected to the internet via ISDN or cable "modem"
It will serve as gateway/proxy server for two other boxen (one
74 matches
Mail list logo
