Hello,
Interesting matter ! Multiarch :-)
I have experienced the same treatment from binutils maintainer, he did
not answer to my mails or bug reports (393841,432772). Tired of this
and as it is an upstream matter i sent a patch upstream and it got
accepted. For my surprise, it is very close to
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:49:07 +0200, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Before you bring this to the tech ctte and such, don't you need a refusal
by the maintainer?
Acticaly refusing things is not part of Mr. Troup's operations. He
rather sits on such issues for years until they solve
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:06:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
I bet that multiarch gets included into Ubuntu about two weeks after
we released lenny without multiarch.
That's
Kevin Mark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:06:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
If you do want to wait for permission/refusal, you might find you
never get a reply and end up waiting
Why did I guess the name of binutils' maintainer correctly _before_
looking into the PTS?
You're not alone.
I bet that multiarch gets included into Ubuntu about two weeks after
we released lenny without multiarch.
That's indeed the way the maintainer seems to work, and he keeps sitting
on
Le Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
Before you bring this to the tech ctte and such, don't you need a refusal
by the maintainer?
Hello,
It reminds me when I had to deal with a DD who thought he orphaned a
package, but did not. It lead to a situation where a few
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:24:09 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ove Kaaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
thread is just their latest, last-ditch
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ove Kaaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
thread is just their latest, last-ditch effort since
* Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080415 21:57]:
Now I suppose sparc and others might still like it if they have
performance advantages of 32bit code over 64bit code, in which case
keeping 64bit for only those programs where the extra address space is
worth it would be great.
I guess most
Twas brillig at 10:01:53 16.04.2008 UTC+02 when Goswin von Brederlow did gyre
and gimble:
GvB Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GvB - 13 month from initial report to raising a minor issue that has no
GvB negative effects on the functionality
GvB - 4 days to fix the issue
GvB - 9 month
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080415 21:57]:
Now I suppose sparc and others might still like it if they have
performance advantages of 32bit code over 64bit code, in which case
keeping 64bit for only those programs where the extra address
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ove Kaaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
thread is just their
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:48:26 +0200: NMU attempt gets vetoed
Nope, this is only a patch with a mail subject 'Patch for pending NMU of
binutils'
The BTS doesn't show it but it was vetoed.
Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:01:53 +0200: 2.
Hi,
I would like to suggest a new release goal and hope that some DDs will
advocate it. This one is actualy quite trivial but some convincing
seems to be neccessary to get it done:
# Multiarch capable toolchain
Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
include
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
include files in the multiarch locations.
Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369064
State: All done except for binutils. Patch exists.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
include files in the multiarch locations.
Bug-Url:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
include files in the multiarch locations.
Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369064
State: All
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like to suggest a new release goal
The release goal list is frozen. We will only drop goals, not add new
ones.
Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
287: Palestinänsertipper
1 Anschlag pro Minute. (Bodo Eggert)
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 22:26]:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
include files in the multiarch
Andreas Barth skrev:
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 22:26]:
I suspect by the time a fully working multiarch is done, x86 won't need
it anymore because everything will be fully 64bit. :)
As Wine maintainer, I'd disagree with that.
People, we want to release soon. Anyone is
20 matches
Mail list logo
