On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:24:12AM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
I hope that my patches (#357629, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #357658
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], #357661
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) are proper enough:-)
This is incomplete: not only libgcc does not provide -dcv1, but
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:41:26PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em S?b, 2006-03-18 ?s 23:17 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Yes. However, I think that 'setting up buildd' is the least difficult
of those tasks. It is by far more difficult to produce patches for all
'standard debian packages'
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:56:35PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
You may look at dpkg-cross ...
I did, and I'm using it, thanks:-)
What is the deal BTW with that new rewrite_dependencies (as of 1.26)
producing bogus names with
-dcv1 suffix? I had to comment 2 lines out of
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:39:41PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
This one looks dead.
I understand we live in a gentoo-driven 0-day bleeding edge culture, but
this is quite spectacular deducment. SLIND was published exactly two
weeks ago in FOSDEM and
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This is a call for help :). If you want to help, just take over the task
of setting a uclibc-i386 buildd up.
What is the need for buildd?
I think I know now what the problem is, see below...
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:41PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
As you see, I get depends with -dcv1 suffix as well as -cross suffix.
Yes, it's exactly what it should do.
Each package xxx-arm-cross package created with dpkg-cross
Thiemo,
The code builds OK. It even runs if I put less than 4 symbols
in a shared library (it works with 3 symbols for sure). I presume
multigot problem is unrelated to this...
Pjotr Kourzanov
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:32:38AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
7 matches
Mail list logo
