2010/2/18 Rob Landley :
> On Thursday 18 February 2010 05:38:01 Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> 2010/2/17 Blue Swirl :
>> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 09:45:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >>> On 02/17/2010 10:24 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> >>>
On Thursday 18 February 2010 05:38:01 Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> 2010/2/17 Blue Swirl :
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 09:45:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> On 02/17/2010 10:24 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> >>> >> I've also got a bunch of "s
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 14:46:15 Blue Swirl wrote:
> > Alas the image has no hint how to reproduce it. Doesn't say what
> > toolchain it was built with, what kernel .config was used, and so on.
> > (The arm one at least had /proc/config.gz...)
> >
> > Well, actually if you "mount -t proc pr
2010/2/17 Blue Swirl :
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 09:45:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 02/17/2010 10:24 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>>> >> I've also got a bunch of "sort of working, but not well enough
>>> >> to run builds natively under"
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 09:45:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/17/2010 10:24 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> >> I've also got a bunch of "sort of working, but not well enough
>> >> to run builds natively under" targets on top of that (arm
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 03:24:58 Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> > I've also got a bunch of "sort of working, but not well enough to run
> > builds natively under" targets on top of that (arm big endian, sh4,
> > sparc...)
>
> What's not well enough on sparc?
More than one thing, unfortunately. (
2010/2/16 Rob Landley :
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:31:16 Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 16.02.2010, at 01:52, Rob Landley wrote:
>> If swapping the parameter was the right solution I would've submitted a
>> patch long ago :-). Unfortunately it's not as easy.
>
> I agree that making a single cont
