Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:54:31PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:43 +0200, Florian Weimer kirjoitti:
>> > * MJ Ray:
>> > > any donations to debian must be given to SPI; or
>> >
>> > Why do you think this is so?
>>
>> Our Con
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> This is a no-op by rule of the constitution.
>
>> Might be a no-op but its an ultimat
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > ===
>> > The Debian project hereby resolves:
>> >
>> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Getting that information or getting amd64 added to sid would be the
>> point of the revised GR. It would have to be worded in a way that
>> forces ftp-maste
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only thing that can belong on vote (after being put in a revised
>> GR) is the inclusion in sid [if it has to come to that]. That would be
>> a GR to overtu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That would mean patching the kernel and porting the binfmt-elf ia32 to
>> be a binfmt misc extention and only loading that if ia32-libs is
>> installed.
&
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Is it just me or are these two paragraphs contradictory?
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 04:28:32AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Yes, its just you. Multiarch will not be an issue for sid for a long
>> time to come.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To be fair, bug #248043 was filed some time ago.
>>
>> It seems to me, after reading that bug, that getting the port into sid
>> has been stalled on questions about the treatment of biarch [actually,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> > That's not an adequate error--but it should be simple to write a
>> > trivial "loader" which provides a more useful error.
>> >
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
>> | bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:45:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> As others have said -- it's not easy to support
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
>> problems communicating with James.
>
> During debconf4, I didn't have any problem communicating with
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
>> > dpkg.
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding ex
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> There is no and never will be a transition plan from i386 to
>> amd64. That is just not possible. You can't replace dpkg since then it
>> lacks its libc and you ca
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
>> >
>> > read FAQ
>>
>> I've alrea
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
>>
>> read FAQ
>
> I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
> userlan
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> No. You obviously never tried or read the mails about it. If you don't
>> have lib64 -> lib linked you get lots and lots of random breakages and
>&g
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If you don't provide a dual 32/64 bit amd64, your transition strategy
>> > is going to be "install it on a different partition" or "backup, wipe
>> > and reinstall".
>
> On Fri, Jul 16,
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:16:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The only thing special for amd64 is that at some point the /lib64 ->
>> /lib link might (or might not) be turned back into a real
>> directoy. But that
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:22:01PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I fail to understand how you still don't get it. multiarch *is*
>> 64/32bit userland. Is there something you don't understand about that?
>
> What I really want is LSB compliant 64 bit use
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn'
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> sarge isn't supported/released, therefore this is not an issue when
>> discussing if amd64 should be released with sarge.
>
> You've confused the configuration of my machine with the issues
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We're going to be dealing with the i386
>> to multiarch transistion, at least this way it'll look reasonably the
>> same on all the platforms as opposted to special on amd64 because you
>> also have to change the base architecture type from amd64 to i386.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:25:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Well, there aren't any 32bit apps in Debian, so it'd have to be
>> something you got from somewhere else.
>
> Does this mean you've a valgrind package for amd64?
valgrind is "Architecture:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, there aren't any 32bit apps in Debian, so it'd have to be
>> something you got from somewhere else. Funny enough, the error would
>> probably be something like 'file not found' because it can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I don't agree with the GR as it stands. The release manager should
>> decide whether or not to release AMD64 with Sarge. I prefer that
>> we could get AMD64 added to Sid by peaceful discussion and not
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:45:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> If so, which part of "I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which
>> is something other distributions already offer." or "That's not vapor"
>> are you having problems with?
>
> The part ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think that's a little unfair. I assumed that people would know the
>> basic plan (yes, failure to anticipate what my audience knows and
>> doesn't know is one of my communication failures) and intend
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:51:51AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> So what technical issues are there? And please reply with your ftp-master
>> hat on. All we hear is "there are issues and ftp-master will post
>
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > No, if you do it right, then you can install the libraries with a
>> > > configuration variable, so that the packages only have to be changed
>> > > onc
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Sure, and I am happy to have dpkg, the RM, the technical committee,
>> etc., make the decision, which is why I haven't given it thought. But
>> when it becomes a GR, you have the necessity to start ov
Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:13:38AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Indeed, this is a way to force a result. However, I wouldn't qualify it
>> a pet issue. The results of the vote will tell whether this is a pet
>> issue for all developers. The purpose o
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I'd be happy to think through it, but only if you give me details.
>
> http://raw.no/debian/amd64-multiarch-2
>
> I'm not 100% sure that's the latest, hopefully others will correct me if
> it isn't. I
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > The most likely reason someone would pick the AMD64 architecture over
>> > the PowerPC architecture is that AMD64 can natively run I386 binaries.
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:33:23AM -0400, Stephen Frost wro
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:18:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Fact of life: amd64 boxen are going to be very common.
>> Fact of life: for very large subset of debian userland, pure64 works and
>> on these boxen it works better than debian/i386.
>
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:04:54PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> People choose ix86 (or amd64) over PowerPC because
>> a) bang/buck ratio.
>> b) runs windows (games.)
>
> Those are two reasons.
>
> Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't lo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
>> To become LSB compliant would involve changing half the packages in
>> Debian to achieve a result to many AMD64 developers consider inelegant;
>> furthermore, a multiarch design is being create
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
>> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
>> (which will be saved using partial mi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
>> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) ...
The LSB needs to be changed to sanely implement compliance to
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:50:13PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>> > On a sidenote, I might well vote for a GR that directs the ftpmasters to
>> > add the amd64 architecture to sid with all achieveable speed as a technical
>> > decision overridding the (appar
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-07-14 19:42:22 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:00:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] using our conversation that I mentioned as proo
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> they're mistaken.
>
> If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
> is a good idea, I pity them.
So what technical issues are there? And please reply wi
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Furthermore, the AMD64 architecture is mostly ready. It now builds just
>> as many packages as our other release architectures, and it has a
>> working installer.
>
> Judging from conv
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> hereby resolves:
>>
>> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted at
>>htt
43 matches
Mail list logo
