Le vendredi 1 mars 2013 07:54:20 Pierre Schmitz a écrit :
Hi,
the multilib repo had different entries for packages in the db and
files databases. It would be great to know how you manged to do this.
Please never alter the files directly as this will always break things!
I removed the
Hi,
the multilib repo had different entries for packages in the db and
files databases. It would be great to know how you manged to do this.
Please never alter the files directly as this will always break things!
I removed the following packages: lib32-libegl lib32-libgbm
lib32-libglapi
On 09/12/2012 03:01 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Can I have access to [multilib] so I can remove chuck? (and possibly
make other useful changes to multilib in the future).
I've the same request. I want to bring to [multilib] lib32-fmodex and
some other dependencies used by games without x86_64
Am 16.09.2012 08:41, schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski:
On 09/12/2012 03:01 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
Can I have access to [multilib] so I can remove chuck? (and possibly
make other useful changes to multilib in the future).
I've the same request. I want to bring to [multilib] lib32-fmodex
Hi,
Chuck has recently released a 64-bit compatible source tarball, so the
multilib package is no longer needed for x86_64.
Can I have access to [multilib] so I can remove chuck? (and possibly
make other useful changes to multilib in the future).
Thanks.
--
Cordially,
Alexander Rødseth
Arch
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Chuck has recently released a 64-bit compatible source tarball, so the
multilib package is no longer needed for x86_64.
Can I have access to [multilib] so I can remove chuck? (and possibly
make other useful
Am 12.09.2012 16:46, schrieb Dan McGee:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Chuck has recently released a 64-bit compatible source tarball, so the
multilib package is no longer needed for x86_64.
Can I have access to [multilib] so I can remove
Thank you, Thomas.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Rødseth
Arch Linux Trusted User
(xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)
Hey guys,
I added the [multilib] repo to the web site so packages should show up
there now and be updated like anything in any other repository.
Pierre- I added the update-web-db cronjob script to the dbscripts
repo. You can see what I did here:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ionuț Bîru ib...@archlinux.org wrote:
On 08/25/2010 07:48 PM, Dan McGee wrote:
Hey guys,
I added the [multilib] repo to the web site so packages should show up
there now and be updated like anything in any other repository.
Pierre- I added the
2008/7/9 Andreas Radke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:14:04 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) Because it doesn't belong in community, it doesn't belong in extra
or even in core. It's a different thing and it should be in its own
place.
I see no reason why it
For a while now, there have been lib32-* packages in community. They
sort of work for many applications, but have certain problems. This is
what I don't like about them:
- The naming convention (lib32-*)
- The separate prefix (/opt/lib32)
- The fact that the binaries are only copied from the
You must have mixed the mailing lists!
Arch64 was founded to never have support for 32bit compatibilty. So
move this into the community/AUR list.
I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've
spent several
Andreas Radke schrieb:
You must have mixed the mailing lists!
Actually, no.
Arch64 was founded to never have support for 32bit compatibilty. So
move this into the community/AUR list.
Yeah, maybe, and I am extending it.
I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
2008/7/8 Andreas Radke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Offering 32bit compat stuff always means to make it easy for users
but takes much pressure from companies and opensource developers give
the x86_64 architecture the time and responsibility it is worth. You
can compare it to the question to support
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Dusty Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Arch64 is not separate from Arch Linux, it should share these
original ideals. They're two architectures under one distro, they
shouldn't have different philosophies.
I think the issue here is that Arch64 started as a
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Radke schrieb:
I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've
spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:44 -0500
Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Radke schrieb:
I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially
supported repos as I already told you in private
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Isenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion setting up an additional official
repo just for multilib is too much work, which isn't needed (MY
opinion).
Just to be clear here - I think Thomas is offering to do all the work
himself, and setting up a
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:36:39 -0500
Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Isenmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion setting up an additional official
repo just for multilib is too much work, which isn't needed (MY
opinion).
Just to be clear
Daniel Isenmann schrieb:
*But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing
this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak,
skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a
handful of apps. That's why I'm neutral on this. I think the
Andreas Radke schrieb:
It's more a question what Arch64 was founded for: to be the bleading
edge leading _pure_ 64bit distro around. That's been its goal since the
project has started. And I think we did a good job.
You may have missed the early discussions when we made decisions that
we don't
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:14:04 +0200
Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Isenmann schrieb:
*But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing
this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak,
skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of
Am Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:14:04 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) Because it doesn't belong in community, it doesn't belong in extra
or even in core. It's a different thing and it should be in its own
place.
I see no reason why it can't become part of the community(TUs?)
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Daniel Isenmann schrieb:
*But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing
this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak,
skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a
handful of apps. That's
25 matches
Mail list logo
