The fix for this issue has been committed upstream:
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revisionrevision=258281
Can this be cherry picked into 9.2 kernel? Should this also be
included in the 10 11 kernels, or do those stay in experimental /
tracking svn head?
I can prepare the debdiffs.
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:48:42 +0100
Source: freebsd-buildutils
Binary: freebsd-buildutils
Architecture: source kfreebsd-amd64
Version: 10~svn258496-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: GNU/kFreeBSD Maintainers
kfreebsd-11_11.0~svn258494-1_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
kfreebsd-11_11.0~svn258494-1.dsc
kfreebsd-11_11.0~svn258494.orig.tar.xz
kfreebsd-11_11.0~svn258494-1.debian.tar.gz
kfreebsd-source-11.0_11.0~svn258494-1_all.deb
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:24:23 +0100
Source: kfreebsd-11
Binary: kfreebsd-source-11.0 kfreebsd-headers-11.0-0
kfreebsd-image-11.0-0-amd64 kfreebsd-image-11-amd64
kfreebsd-headers-11.0-0-amd64 kfreebsd-headers-11-amd64
Hi!
Robert Millan r...@debian.org writes:
On 22/11/2013 17:58, Christoph Egger wrote:
Robert Millan r...@debian.org writes:
On 22/11/2013 01:26, Christoph Egger wrote:
After fixing permissions on /dev/dri/card0:
What's wrong with those? Do we need to change something in
On 23/11/2013 14:56, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
The fix for this issue has been committed upstream:
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revisionrevision=258281
Thanks. I just uploaded a new kfreebsd-11 snapshot which includes it.
Please can you confirm it works?
Can this be cherry picked into
Your message dated Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:20:47 +
with message-id e1vkgsx-tr...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#729698: fixed in kfreebsd-11 11.0~svn258494-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #729698,
regarding libc0.1: wait6 is broken on 9.2+
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:20:47 +
with message-id e1vkgsx-tm...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#727829: fixed in kfreebsd-11 11.0~svn258494-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #727829,
regarding FTBFS on mipsel
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On 23/11/2013 19:48, Christoph Egger wrote:
If I chmod 666 the dri device file it at least tries to get i915 running
Who's the owner and group of that file?
% ls -lha /dev/dri/card0
crw-rw 1 root root 0, 135 Nov 22 17:47 /dev/dri/card0
Does this fix the perms on boot?
Seems to work
On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Ivo De Decker wrote:
During a discussion about architecture qualification, the release team
concluded that it would be interesting to have a better way to track
architecture-specific bugs. It would be nice to have BTS tags for each
architecture that is currently in the
On 23 November 2013 21:53, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Ivo De Decker wrote:
During a discussion about architecture qualification, the release team
concluded that it would be interesting to have a better way to track
architecture-specific bugs. It would be nice to
Hi,
minieigen needs a lot of memory to build (~2715MiB with gcc-4.8/4.8.2-5).
It has always failed on buildd fano, and always worked on fasch/fayrfax.
It builds fine for me locally with 6GiB RAM.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=minieigenarch=kfreebsd-amd64
Apparently fano and
Don Armstrong dixit:
These are the list of ports that I see:
Question is, where do you see them?
avr32
This one got removed even from debian-ports for several
reasons.
sh
I think there's sh4 but not just sh.
Looking at the buildd pages is probably the best idea.
Combining
On 11/23/2013 10:53 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Ivo De Decker wrote:
During a discussion about architecture qualification, the release team
concluded that it would be interesting to have a better way to track
architecture-specific bugs. It would be nice to have BTS tags for
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org (2013-11-23):
We now have openjdk-7 as the default java on kfreebsd-* in sid [0].
Please could you give back:
* gluegen2
* eclipse
for kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386.
Done for both.
(Randomly passing by…)
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description:
Moin!
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org writes:
minieigen needs a lot of memory to build (~2715MiB with gcc-4.8/4.8.2-5).
It has always failed on buildd fano, and always worked on fasch/fayrfax.
It builds fine for me locally with 6GiB RAM.
On 23/11/13 23:17, Christoph Egger wrote:
christoph@fano ~
23:16 0 % free -m
total used free sharedbuffers
cached
Mem: 3054441 2613 38 0 123
-/+ buffers/cache:317 2736
Swap: 512
On 11/23/2013 11:51 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
What else am I missing?
Please add hppa
Assuming that you are one of the hppa guys, how is the port doing? Any
chance that the buildds will be up and running again anytime soon?
Cheers,
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian
On 11/24/2013 12:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 11/23/2013 11:51 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Please add hppa
Assuming that you are one of the hppa guys, how is the port doing? Any
chance that the buildds will be up and running again anytime soon?
Yes, think so.
I'm working on that
On 11/24/2013 12:22 AM, Helge Deller wrote:
On 11/24/2013 12:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 11/23/2013 11:51 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Please add hppa
Assuming that you are one of the hppa guys, how is the port doing? Any
chance that the buildds will be up and running again anytime
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org writes:
On 23/11/13 23:17, Christoph Egger wrote:
christoph@fano ~
23:16 0 % free -m
total used free sharedbuffers
cached
Mem: 3054441 2613 38 0 123
-/+
On 11/24/2013 12:47 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
On 23-Nov-13, at 6:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Crossing my fingers! It's been sad to see the number of up-to-date
packages in hppa dropping over the time.
It should be going up now.
So, the buildds are already up and running?
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
These are the list of ports that I see:
I would strongly suggest not hardcoding this list and instead
harvesting the Architecture fields of the Release files for oldstable
- experimental on ftp.d.o, ftp.d-p.o and maybe archive.d.o.
We have
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
On 11/24/2013 12:47 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
It should be going up now.
So, the buildds are already up and running? Shouldn't they be showing
up on buildd.debian-ports.org [1]?
I think I saw buildd uploads for hppa on incoming.d.o this week.
Paul Wise
On 11/24/2013 01:20 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
So, the buildds are already up and running? Shouldn't they be showing
up on buildd.debian-ports.org [1]?
I think I saw buildd uploads for hppa on incoming.d.o this week.
Indeed:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
These are the list of ports that I see:
I would strongly suggest not hardcoding this list and instead
harvesting the Architecture fields of the Release files for oldstable
- experimental on
On 11/23/13 4:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 11/24/2013 12:22 AM, Helge Deller wrote:
On 11/24/2013 12:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 11/23/2013 11:51 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
Please add hppa
Assuming that you are one of the hppa guys, how is the port doing? Any
On 23/11/2013 22:53, Don Armstrong wrote:
kfreebsd-amd64
kfreebsd-i386
Most of the bugs affecting one of these also affect the other. I think
it makes sense to add a single tag to cover both.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 23/11/2013 22:59, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
* eclipse
for kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386.
I'm surprised that it builds. Last time I tried eclipse_3.8.1-4, a small
patch was needed (see attachment).
Any idea if this is still useful? I can't see why JAVA_HOME wouldn't
work the same way for
Hi folks,
What about relicensing of the kFreeBSD? BSD license is permissive, I
think BSD doesn't match with GNU, because of that why not relicence the
kFreeBSD under GPL? this can result in a greater approval of the GNU
project.
And why the Debian packagers dont support kFreeBSD and remain
On 24 November 2013 02:02, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
Hi folks,
What about relicensing of the kFreeBSD? BSD license is permissive, I think
BSD doesn't match with GNU, because of that why not relicence the kFreeBSD
under GPL? this can result in a greater approval of the GNU project.
On 24 November 2013 04:06, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is official Debian port, and thus Debian packages
and packagers support kFreeBSD.
Sorry, but that's not what I see...I dont see any interest from Gnome
maintainers for kFreeBSD for example, just throw the job
32 matches
Mail list logo
