Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 10 Dec 2007 14:00:15 +0100, a écrit :
Guillem, Samuel, thanks for your investiagation, but I had not yet
installed this patch for a reason. It should not be needed at all, as
well as also the already-existing ``i386/i386at/boothdr.o:
i386/i386/i386asm.h'' dependency
Hello!
Guillem, Samuel, thanks for your investiagation, but I had not yet
installed this patch for a reason. It should not be needed at all, as
well as also the already-existing ``i386/i386at/boothdr.o:
i386/i386/i386asm.h'' dependency line should not be needed.
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at
Hello!
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:00:15PM +0100, I wrote:
Guillem, Samuel, thanks for your investiagation, but I had not yet
installed this patch for a reason. It should not be needed at all, as
well as also the already-existing ``i386/i386at/boothdr.o:
i386/i386/i386asm.h'' dependency line
Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guillem, Samuel, thanks for your investiagation, but I had not yet
installed this patch for a reason. It should not be needed at all,
as well as also the already-existing ``i386/i386at/boothdr.o:
i386/i386/i386asm.h'' dependency line should not
Guillem Jover, le Wed 05 Dec 2007 07:23:08 +0200, a écrit :
A rebuild of the whole Debian archive [0] revealed that gnumach is not
parallel build safe [1]. The following patch should fix this.
Applied, thanks!
Samuel
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Hi,
A rebuild of the whole Debian archive [0] revealed that gnumach is not
parallel build safe [1]. The following patch should fix this.
regards,
guillem
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/12/msg00020.html
[1] http://people.debian.org/~schepler/build-logs/gnumach
2007-12-05
