On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I really don't see the problem with AMD64, why it would be more wrong
> than ia32 or x86 (based on Intel's product numbers!). AMD64 was invented
> by AMD and they get to pick the name for it. The keyword amd64 in Gento
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:40 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The core of a distribution is the "packaging" system, and the core of
> the packaging system is the building system, which has no reason not
> to be distribution agnostic, and actually, packaging system agnostic.
>
> Why not create a n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jo,
It appears that bug 177978 answers your question. Apparently libiptc
wasn't meant to be a public interface and is intended to be removed from
the iptables pacakge[2]. Hope this helps answer your question. Please
do have a good hunt t
Hi list,
i'm currently developing a C-program that needs to use libiptc to modify
netfilter tables. Unfortunately this library isn't included in the
iptables package as it should be. Is this a reasonable behavior or just
a simple bug? I really need this library and would like to make use of
t
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:40:23 +0100
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has be
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - x64 is IMO the worst name for the architecture (originally a MS
> marketing term later adopted by Sun, looks too similar to x86, name
> doesn't make any sense really if you compare it to x86)
Marius said all I wanted to say on that name.
Beside, does
# Wulf C. Krueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21 Jul 2007)
# Broken by upstream. cf. bug 173972.
=media-video/konverter-0.93
This has been p.masked for quite some time now for instability and lots of
bugs. It's been abandoned for about two years now. It won't even compile
anymore now (bug 211002).
As
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 07:40:43PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?
I guess there may be some confusion for people installing their first
amd64 on a Intel box. However, i think this sort of confusion is
solved more app
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?
In fairness, not just for Intel fanboys. Drop by the forums some time
and just try to count up all the threads asking "are the amd64
stages/media appropriate for my computer? i have a core 2..
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:37 -0800, Josh Saddler wrote:
>
> Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier,
> there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which
> wouldn't make the GDP happpy.
Doubt the amd64 team, and infra would be happy either. Since lik
10 matches
Mail list logo
