On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> While I've got you here, I've run into a problem with X -configure
> segfaulting in the s3virge driver. I haven't checked it lately (meaning
> in the past three weeks), so it might be fixed already (I'll check again
> tomorrow), but I wanted to
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> While I've got you here, I've run into a problem with X -configure
> segfaulting in the s3virge driver. I haven't checked it lately (meaning
> in the past three weeks), so it might be fixed already (I'll check again
> tomorrow), but I wanted t
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> It is still puzzleing why it does something different on Alpha vs others.
> Maybe someone could run objdump --headers on Alpha & x86 versions of the
> same modules so we can see if there are any interesting differences.
While I've got you here, I've
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> This loader is different from the libc loader in that it operates on the
> symbols that are used when linking an object (and are the ones that get
> stripped). This differ from the .so libraries that the libc loader uses. They
> have a .dynsym section
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> It is still puzzleing why it does something different on Alpha vs others.
> Maybe someone could run objdump --headers on Alpha & x86 versions of the
> same modules so we can see if there are any interesting differences.
While I've got you here, I've
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> This loader is different from the libc loader in that it operates on the
> symbols that are used when linking an object (and are the ones that get
> stripped). This differ from the .so libraries that the libc loader uses. They
> have a .dynsym section
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> We know how to turn off stripping for Alpha, that's not the problem. The
> problem is why the loader is choking on stripped modules. We don't know.
This loader is different from the libc loader in that it operates on the
symbols that are used when l
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 01:25:40PM -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> Where is dh_strip invoked? I don't see it in the XFree86 config files, so
> I'll assume it is run as part of te packagin process.
Yes. It is run as part of the debian/rules makefile, which wraps the
XFree86 make World and make ins
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Stuart may not be familiar with the vagaries of Debian packaging.
You're right, I'm not. Always meant to get to that, but still haven't.
> I build with debugging symbols enabled, but Debian Policy insists that they
> be stripped out when the package
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Stuart may not be familiar with the vagaries of Debian packaging.
>
> I build with debugging symbols enabled, but Debian Policy insists that they
> be stripped out when the package is generated.
>
> My completely uneducated guess is that something in
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:12:48AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
>
> > I seemed to miss the patch mentioned, but my guess would be that it involves
> > wether or not to pass -s to install?
> >
> > The modules that get loaded can't get comple
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> We know how to turn off stripping for Alpha, that's not the problem. The
> problem is why the loader is choking on stripped modules. We don't know.
This loader is different from the libc loader in that it operates on the
symbols that are used when
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 01:25:40PM -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> Where is dh_strip invoked? I don't see it in the XFree86 config files, so
> I'll assume it is run as part of te packagin process.
Yes. It is run as part of the debian/rules makefile, which wraps the
XFree86 make World and make in
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Stuart may not be familiar with the vagaries of Debian packaging.
You're right, I'm not. Always meant to get to that, but still haven't.
> I build with debugging symbols enabled, but Debian Policy insists that they
> be stripped out when the package
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> I seemed to miss the patch mentioned, but my guess would be that it involves
> wether or not to pass -s to install?
>
> The modules that get loaded can't get completely stripped, or they loose the
> symbol & relocation information which is required fo
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Stuart may not be familiar with the vagaries of Debian packaging.
>
> I build with debugging symbols enabled, but Debian Policy insists that they
> be stripped out when the package is generated.
>
> My completely uneducated guess is that something i
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:12:48AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
>
> > I seemed to miss the patch mentioned, but my guess would be that it involves
> > wether or not to pass -s to install?
> >
> > The modules that get loaded can't get compl
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 02:27:22AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Oh, while I'm on the subject, I really need that patch to the rules script
> > incorporated for now. For some reason, whenever the modules in
> > xserver-xfree86 are stripped
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> I seemed to miss the patch mentioned, but my guess would be that it involves
> wether or not to pass -s to install?
>
> The modules that get loaded can't get completely stripped, or they loose the
> symbol & relocation information which is required f
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 02:27:22AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Oh, while I'm on the subject, I really need that patch to the rules script
> > incorporated for now. For some reason, whenever the modules in
> > xserver-xfree86 are strippe
20 matches
Mail list logo
