From: Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:41:55 -0500
> Replacing Aurelien's patch with this one fixes the
> /lib64/libc.so.6: error while loading shared libraries: unexpected reloc type
> 0x4f
> problem, and "/lib64/libc.so.6 --version" works fine.
>
> However, 64-bit bina
Package: libc6-sparc64
Version: 2.3.5-8
Severity: normal
There are some critical things missing in the sparc64 TLS support code
in the current debian glibc tree, for example none of the TLS
relcation support is in sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/dl-machine.h, and
therefore so no binary linked against 64-bit
From: Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:51:39 +0200
> I have this error report on ifconfig (also a problem with ip link) that a
> down interface receives packets. I remeber this was discussed before but
> cannot find a result of the outcome. Is this a driver problem?
B
From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:29:16 -0400
> And what about building kernels? They will by default be building
> sparc32 kernels. That's the most likely place for this to be a
> problem.
People can't wrap their brain around how to build a sparc64
kernel often righ
From: "Jim Crilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:42:27 -0400
> True, but building kernels on sparc64 wasn't terribly fun for me the last
> time I tried it either so I decided it wasn't worth it and just stuck with
> the Debian kernel images.
Amusing as I do all of the sparc64 ker
From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:21:57 -0400
> But (and this but is for David), that means users can't simply do
> "apt-get source foo; cd foo-1.1; dpkg-buildpackage" and get the same build
> they got from us, which is a consistency Debian needs. Maintainers trying
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:24:18 -0700
> The other alternative is to "touch /etc/disable_64_gcc
Sure, but in the mail you are specifically replying to I stated:
> > Also, /etc/disable_64_gcc is a workaround and should not be there
> > by default as it is now, especially on
From: Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 01:37:50 +0200
> David S. Miller wrote:
> [snip]
> > This is not a bug, it should be closed. On sparc64, gcc should emit
> > 64-bit code by default. If you want 32-bit code emitted on a sparc64
> &g
On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:06:52 +0200
Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this bug has been open for quite some time as "important". Can some
> sparc people please comment on it?
This is not a bug, it should be closed. On sparc64, gcc should emit
64-bit code by default. If you want 32-bit c
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:48:07 +0200
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One problem is that the Mostek RTC driver currently does not support the
> RTC_(RD/SET)_TIME. However, the thread contains a patch that will fix
> this. I am not completely sure if this patch is final yet or if has will
>
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:10:17 -0400 (EDT)
Jurij Smakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please review and apply if it makes sense :-).
Looks good, I'll apply this.
Thanks Jurij.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:51:52 +0100
Dieter Jurzitza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without afbinit things get *very* slow,
That's correct, because without afbinit the chip's acceleration cannot
be used, thus we drop down to pure unaccelerated software graphics
rendering to the frame buffer. This is
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:57:08 -0500 (EST)
Jurij Smakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It only looks for (and scans for devices on) the first one
> it finds. I am reassigning this report to dicover1 and will try to cook up
> a patch for that.
Perfect. sun4d systems would need such a fix as well, t
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:21:53 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but I didn't realize that it was probably a non-bug. Do you think I
> ought to revert that then?
I think so, just autoloading modules to work around incorrect
SBUS module loading isn't such a good idea.
> Ben didn't m
14 matches
Mail list logo
