On Tue, April 13, 2010 3:22 am, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Stephen R Marenka dixit:
>>I'm not inclined to upload these directly to sid, since they were built >> in >>a seriously tainted chroot and I had to do some odd things to some of >> them. >>That said, I think they're fine for bootstrapping other packages. > > Iâm building a more clean gcc-4.3_4.3.4-10+m68k right now; my > build of gcc-4.3_4.3.4-8+m68k was aborted due to a kernel crash, > but I continued it and managed to install the .deb files and use > it. While not a cowbuilder, the aranym instance I use is probably > less âtaintedâ than some developersâ regular machines, so the > packages I build *should* be fine. Very likely. The only caution I have for gcc-4.3 is that some of the ICE bugs were fixed in gcc-4.4. > After being done, I plan on getting cowbuilder to work for me. > Maybe gcc-4.4 later? Or do you already work on it? I'm still trying to build all of the gcc-4.4 dependencies. > [ cross-compiling ] >>Seriously painful. > > Mh. IMHO itâs only for bootstrapping. > > > I wonder though: is there SOME way for âusâ to upload a package, > say, locales_2.5-11_all, to unreleased and have apt use it in > favour of locales_2.10-*_all from unstable? Maybe have the lat- > ter excluded from the binary-m68k/Packages file in debian-ports? > This would help the process (to get builds working again, even > if itâs a bit hackish for now) along somewhat more. Iâm relati- > vely new to this (DD since this year), so please excuse my not > knowing. I generally just add my own repo to the buildd, such as [0]. Certainly a more general approach would be nice, but ultimately we just need to build eglibc. [0] deb http://www.debian-ports.org/~smarenka/lenny-buildd/ ./ Peace, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
