Hello Frans,
Frans Pop wrote:
Andreas Jochens wrote:
The proposed glibc patch will break the installer. The installer does
not have the symlink from /usr/lib64 to /usr/lib. (This is not by
accident. It has been decided following some discussion.)
The symlink currently is there actually
the build
process, will break if the native libraries are not in /usr/lib.
It would be a _lot_ of work to change the whole distribution to use
/usr/lib64 instead of /usr/lib as the location of the native libraries.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
.
Anything which makes it easier to violate this simple policy
will lead to a mixed usage of /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 and consequently
to problems which could be difficult to disentangle later.
This is just my personal opinion.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 06-May-19 11:02, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Andreas Jochens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anything which makes it easier to violate this simple policy
will lead to a mixed usage of /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 and consequently
to problems which could be difficult to disentangle later
/control as 'wontfix'.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Hopefully this will be acceptable.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05-Sep-20 19:01, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 05:44:34PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
I currently have no other place to host a public archive for the
native 64-bit Debian-ppc64 port. Because of this, I did not yet
delete the debian-ppc64 archive from alioth as you
, for amd64 to get anywhere near to the
requested 98% mark again.
Will the amd64 port be rejected if more than two percent of the
unmodified source packages from 'unstable' fail to compile?
If not, what does the 98% rule really mean?
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]:
I understand that the amd64 port has to be recompiled for the
final inclusion into the official archive because the current amd64
packages have not been built by DDs. But currently more than 10
which are already available
on the regular powerpc architecture.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05-May-06 00:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:58:27AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
A few things you might want to do with this list here:
...
- post it to debian-devel so people can poke through these for the BSP this
weekend
The new list of FTBFS bugs will still
and will try to upload fixes
as soon as possible.
Thank you for all the fixes to my reports which you already uploaded
and for your work in general!
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arches including i386. I think those are 'serious'
FTBFS bugs, even for packages in 'contrib'. What should be done with
those?
I agree that those should be RC, since they are not about packages we don't
distribute.
Thank you for clarifying this.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
P.S.: Thanks a lot
On 05-Apr-28 12:21, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:42:50AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
E: Package libxaw-dev has no installation candidate
E: Failed to satisfy Build-Depends dependency for axe: libxaw-dev
The new version 6.1.2-14 in 'sid' does not have this problem
has to be completed]
Last update: 2005-04-24 Andreas Jochens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
latest ppp makes it into sarge.
Again, thanks for looking at my list of amd64 related FTBFS bugs.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek wrote:
portslave- pppd.h: No such file or directory
Hmm, you may want to re-check this against current versions of ppp and
portslave.
I just re-checked this again and now portslave builds fine in testing,
thanks.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Hello Kurt,
thank you for the clarifications.
On 05-Apr-25 19:49, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:32:25AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
gnustep-base - + does not build with gcc-3.3 (needs gcc = 3.4)
It looks like it builds fine with gcc-3.3. But if my memory is
any
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:32:25AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
Debian sarge release for the amd64 architecture
---
At the amd porters irc meeting on 2005-04-23 07:00 UTC, the amd64 porting
team decided to release
Hello Steve,
thank you for your reply to my status report.
Steve Langasek wrote:
Andreas Jochens wrote:
It will only be necessary to describe the current situation
in the official release documents and include pointers
to the separate amd64 archive, which will be provided
by the amd64
documents and include pointers
to the separate amd64 archive, which will be provided
by the amd64 porting team anyway.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
P.S.: The above statements represent my personal view only.
Other members of the amd64 porting team may view things differently,
of course.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On 05-Apr-12 09:30, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
Andreas Jochens wrote:
When building 'usermin-contrib' on i386/unstable with sun-j2sdk1.4,
I get the following error:
So don't do that then. The build depends is for j2sdk1.4 (i.e. Blackdown.)
'j2sdk1.4' is virtual package which is provided
?
Thank you for your fast reply and sorry for the noise.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are already in
version 2.3.4 have been dropped for this. Only about 30 patches out
of more than 100 had to be kept.
The newer glibc version works quite well so far. Two other packages
needed a small patch to properly run with glibc-2.3.4.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
. Every help will be appreciated, of course.
Please help the ppc64 port by including support for the ppc64
architecture in 'dpkg' and other packages.
Many thanks to all package maintainers who already applied patches to
their packages to support the ppc64 architecture.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
[1
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
Which group
require this.
The compiler in the current ppc64 archive is fully biarch, i.e. it can
produce 64 bit and 32 bit binaries. There is also a 64 bit and a 32 bit
glibc version in the archive.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
the choosen
name.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in this case.
I did not yet hear a single vote for the package name 'powerpc64' from
anybody who is actively involved in the p(ower)pc64 port.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
31 matches
Mail list logo
