On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:43:43PM +0100, Fabian Wolff wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:57:11 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This looks like ~ 70 arm64-only Build-Attempted failures since buildd
> > chroots were regenerated on Sunday, in a wide variety of packages.
>
> My package (z3) is one
>>> Are there any other boards or chipsets I should be considering?
>> I'm also using A20-based boards for the same kind of use you describe
>> and for the same reasons, and while I haven't yet felt a need to replace
>> them, I've noticed the ESPRESSObin as a candidate for successor.
>> It's not
On 14/01/2020 12:35, David Pottage wrote:
> Can the RK3399 CPU and Debian kernel run 32 binaries? (Similar to how
> you can run old 32bit x86 on a modern 64bit intel CPU)
Yes, I run 32 bit containers on a RK3399.
n.b. some other 64 bit ARM CPUs won't execute 32 bit code (it's an
optional
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:57:11 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This looks like ~ 70 arm64-only Build-Attempted failures since buildd
> chroots were regenerated on Sunday, in a wide variety of packages.
My package (z3) is one of them (builds on all other release architectures,
blocked from
Hi Steve,
Le 13/01/2020 à 18:48, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>> janest-base FTBFS on arm64 (and only on this architecture) (buildd
>> arm-arm-04) with a SIGILL. However, I cannot reproduce on arm64
>> porterbox (amdahl). I've given it back, and it still fails (on arm-ubc-02).
>>
>> Does somebody
On 2020-01-11 23:16, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Are there any other boards or chipsets I should be considering?
I'm also using A20-based boards for the same kind of use you describe
and for the same reasons, and while I haven't yet felt a need to
replace
them, I've noticed the ESPRESSObin as a
On 2020-01-12 09:14, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 11 ian 20, 19:42:24, David Pottage wrote:
The RockPro64, is a bit larger and more expensive. It has a full size
PCIe
x4 socket, so I can fit an NVMe drive using a simple adapter. I can’t
find
any pre-built cases, so I would have to make
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>...
> Christian Marillat says that "Binutils package is broken see #911990",
> but this bug has been marked as fixed-upstream for more than 1 year, is
> it really still on topic?
Correct bug number would be #948803 or #948819.
The
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:57:11PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>>...
>> Christian Marillat says that "Binutils package is broken see #911990",
>> but this bug has been marked as fixed-upstream for more than 1 year, is
>> it really
9 matches
Mail list logo
