Hello,
A new procps has been uploaded. I think the 64bit arches will be ok
but I'd just like to let you lot know that there might be problems on
the sparc or amd64.
Complaining won't fix it, but patches that don't break the package in
other exciting ways will fix it. I know it works ok for an
I just upgraded my machine and I find that cron is broken. It looks for
/usr/bin/crontab while trying to upgrade. Because exim and a few more
packages depend on cron they are also not upgraded and dont install
again.
Thanks,
Bharath
---
Bharath Ramesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:08:21 +1000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) wrote:
A new procps has been uploaded. I think the 64bit arches will be ok
but I'd just like to let you lot know that there might be problems on
the sparc or amd64.
Complaining won't fix it, but patches that don't break
Bharath Ramesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just upgraded my machine and I find that cron is broken. It looks for
/usr/bin/crontab while trying to upgrade. Because exim and a few more
packages depend on cron they are also not upgraded and dont install
again.
Thanks,
Bharath
See BTS. fixed
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 10:35:09AM +0200, Xavier Roche wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
Please accept this: Bi-Arch is dead. Just dead.
Yes, yes - this is not a major issue. As long as multiarch is planned
soon, this is not a problem.
amd64 is the pure 64-bit port. Enough
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
Multiarch, bi-arch, some people want them, that's great, but they're
simply offtopic with respect to the amd64 port.
That said, the amd64 port can accomodate both without much problem.
Bi-arch being less painful than multiarch, in my
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
Multiarch, bi-arch, some people want them, that's great, but they're
simply offtopic with respect to the amd64 port.
That said, the amd64 port can accomodate both without much problem.
Bi-arch being less painful than multiarch, in my
opinion -- it needs to touch far fewer packages:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00244.html
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:43:00AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
This is only true if you do a half-ass[1] job w/ bi-arch. This isn't,
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I dispute your half-ass assertion.
biarch is useful for systems in transition. That means people upgrading
from 32 bit systems, and people working with packages which haven't been
ported -- for whatever reason.
The vast majority of packages in
Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
biarch is useful for systems in transition. That means people upgrading
from 32 bit systems, and people working with packages which haven't been
ported -- for whatever reason.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 12:34:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
The vast
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 12:34:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That's what pure64 *is*. The number of people 'upgrading' from 32bit
systems is probably around 1 (that being you), the rest of us have moved
on to pure64 already, and did so a long ass
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040729 20:10]:
[...]
Can we please just finish this discussion. All good (and also some
bad) reasons are already told. You believe that amd64 is not worth to
be added to the archive until it's bi-arch, whereas the porters
consider different, and tell us that
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040729 20:10]:
[...]
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Can we please just finish this discussion.
If people will stop making false assertions, I'll stop offering counters
to those assertions.
All good (and also some bad)
I thought your point was that biarch was half-assed. I don't see how
what you're saying here has anything to do with your point, whatsoever.
The current biarch on sparc and s390 is certainly half-assed. Why would
amd64 be any different?
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 02:54:18PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
The current biarch on sparc and s390 is certainly half-assed. Why would
amd64 be any different?
Because it's designed to be different?
--
Raul
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
Multiarch, bi-arch, some people want them, that's great, but they're
simply offtopic with respect to the amd64 port.
That said, the amd64 port can accomodate both without much problem.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040729 20:10]:
[...]
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Can we please just finish this discussion.
If people will stop making false assertions, I'll stop offering counters
to those
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 02:13:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
This is just blatently false. There certainly is gain in making every
package supported on both architectures. It gives our users *options*.
For the amd64 side, it allows programs
Bi-arch being less painful than multiarch, in my
opinion -- it needs to touch far fewer packages:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00244.html
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Biarch needs all packages to change. I repeat: _all_.
We
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040729 21:25]:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Can we please just finish this discussion.
If people will stop making false assertions, I'll stop offering counters
to those assertions.
Please don't take it personal, but there
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:55:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If you want create a login on alioth and I can give you access to your
own biarch repository where you can implement all you want.
I've got plenty of machine access -- what I don't currently have
is time (I've some unexpected
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:03:57PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Several people already have voiced their wish to install a flash
plugin for mozilla. That would mean installing a 32bit i386 mozilla
even though we have a 64bit amd64 mozilla.
Yes.
The need for choice is there. Your
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
Multiarch, bi-arch, some people want them, that's great, but they're
simply offtopic with respect to the amd64 port.
* Raul Miller
Bi-arch being less painful than multiarch, in my
opinion -- it needs to touch far fewer packages:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00244.html
The above url is a proposal which presents a different way
of doing biarch.
If you'd like to offer specific
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:27:54PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
I must admit I didn't study your proposal closely enough to form an
opinion of its technical merits, but as testing base will freeze the
day after tomorrow, it isn't very realistic to hope that this modified
dpkg will make it.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:25:03PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:27:54PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
I must admit I didn't study your proposal closely enough to form an
opinion of its technical merits, but as testing base will freeze the
day after tomorrow, it
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
Multiarch, bi-arch, some people want them, that's great, but they're
simply
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bi-arch being less painful than multiarch, in my
opinion -- it needs to touch far fewer packages:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00244.html
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Biarch needs all
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:55:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If you want create a login on alioth and I can give you access to your
own biarch repository where you can implement all you want.
I've got plenty of machine access -- what I don't
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:03:57PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Not possible for sarge and not feasable for sarge+1 (since multiarch
will replace it the moment sarge is released anyway).
There are no conflicts between my proposal and the multiarch
30 matches
Mail list logo
