On Sat, 18 May 2013 01:36:02 +0200
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 07:12:26PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
I can already say that it won't be binary identical to the 64+32 build,
because even the 64-bit standalone build isn't binary identical to the
64-bit
On 05/14/2013 09:40 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Could you build a 32bit only, a 64bit only and a 32+64bit wine, run
make install for each case and generate a file list for each?
Including file output so it shows what is 32bit and what 64bit in
the mixed case.
I have these file lists now,
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 07:12:26PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
I can already say that it won't be binary identical to the 64+32 build,
because even the 64-bit standalone build isn't binary identical to the
64-bit side of a combined build (even though they're configured the
exact same way). I'm
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:55:30AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/09/2013 11:59 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Goswin von Brederlow [2013-05-09 11:39 +0200]:
I would say that a foreign dependency on a library is never right.
That's too strong. It can make sense for cross-tools, or maybe
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:31:54AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/13/2013 10:22 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/13/2013 09:46 AM, Wookey wrote:
Hmm. Do the parts of the 64-bit tree that the 32-bit side compiles
against end up installed in a final installation (as libraries?) or
are they
On 05/14/2013 09:34 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:55:30AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
If I'm correctly understanding what's being described here, I would
think that the full-functionality 64+32 Wine would probably be
another exception (unless it falls under
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 04:59:28PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Goswin von Brederlow [2013-05-09 11:39 +0200]:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:43:22AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed
On 05/09/2013 11:59 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Goswin von Brederlow [2013-05-09 11:39 +0200]:
I would say that a foreign dependency on a library is never right.
That's too strong. It can make sense for cross-tools, or maybe
emulators, which genuinely need a foreign-arch library to operate.
But
+++ The Wanderer [2013-05-13 07:55 -0400]:
On 05/09/2013 11:59 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Goswin von Brederlow [2013-05-09 11:39 +0200]:
I would say that a foreign dependency on a library is never right.
That's too strong. It can make sense for cross-tools, or maybe
emulators, which
On 05/13/2013 09:46 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ The Wanderer [2013-05-13 07:55 -0400]:
For the full 64+32 Wine, I don't believe this is possible - or if
it is possible, no way of doing it has yet been documented that I
know of. The official Wine documentation of how to build that
configuration
On 05/13/2013 10:22 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/13/2013 09:46 AM, Wookey wrote:
Hmm. Do the parts of the 64-bit tree that the 32-bit side compiles
against end up installed in a final installation (as libraries?) or
are they really just intermediate 'during build' items?
They do end up
On 05/13/2013 10:31 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/13/2013 10:22 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/13/2013 09:46 AM, Wookey wrote:
Hmm. Do the parts of the 64-bit tree that the 32-bit side
compiles against end up installed in a final installation (as
libraries?) or are they really just
+++ The Wanderer [2013-05-13 10:22 -0400]:
On 05/13/2013 09:46 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ The Wanderer [2013-05-13 07:55 -0400]:
For the full 64+32 Wine, I don't believe this is possible - or if
it is possible, no way of doing it has yet been documented that I
know of. The official Wine
On 05/13/2013 11:00 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ The Wanderer [2013-05-13 10:22 -0400]:
On 05/13/2013 09:46 AM, Wookey wrote:
OK. I'd like to understand some more about this, as it's a
similar issue to other cross-compiler toolchains, and if we can't
solve both the same way then our design is
On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:43:05 -0400, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 05/13/2013 11:00 AM, Wookey wrote:
OK. And is 32-bit wine (to be installed on amd64) an amd64 binary
that understands i386 code or is it actually i386 code? If the latter
to what degree are wine32:amd64 and
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-v-b at web.de writes:
I would say that a foreign dependency on a library is never right. If
Nope. I’m waiting for support for that for pcc.
(And that pcc CVS HEAD gets stable/usable again, but that’s
a totally different issue.)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 08:43 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386 qualified libraries:
Package:
On 2013-05-10 14:48, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 08:43 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386 qualified libraries:
Package: teamspeak-client
It appears that will block it from reaching
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:43:22AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386 qualified libraries:
Package:
+++ Goswin von Brederlow [2013-05-09 11:39 +0200]:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:43:22AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:43:22AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-05-09 07:56, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386 qualified libraries:
Package:
On 2013-05-09 21:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
Sorry for not knowing the answer to this, but does britney support :any
dependencies? These don't require any cross-architecture dependency
resolution, but should be satisfiable within each architecture; britney just
needs to support them.
Hi,
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386 qualified libraries:
Package: teamspeak-client
Version: 2.0.32-4
Installed-Size: 14360
Maintainer: Debian QA Group packa...@qa.debian.org
Architecture: amd64
Depends: libc6-i386 (= 2.1.3),
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I just noticed that we have the first amd64 package in the archive that
has dependencies on :i386 qualified libraries:
Package: teamspeak-client
It appears that will block it from reaching testing:
25 matches
Mail list logo
