On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 08:23:23PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 07:12:33PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 07:49:34PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:35:08PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 07:19:29PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:22:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > > > Patch attached for 32-bit biarch support (lib32sm6 and lib32sm-dev). > > > > > > > > > > > > (needs lib32ice first) > > > > > > > > > > Um, why don't you focus your energies on proper multiarch support > > > > > instead of trying to propagate hacks like this further than they need > > > > > to > > > > > be? > > > > > > > > Wait, this is not proper multiarch? > > > > > > No. > > > > Can you point me to any of: > > > > a) documentation/description of the "right thing". > > http://www.google.com/search?q=multiarch&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky > > > b) current status / timeline. > > > > c) reason why everyone else (including glibc and gcc maintainers) seems > > to be > > following this scheme instead. > > These two questions are left as an exercise to the reader.
Thank you for nothing. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
