On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 13:03 +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
dpkg --add-architecture i386
apt-get update
The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The
i386/amd64 installer images might at least be
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
dpkg --add-architecture i386
apt-get update
The installer doesn't AFAIK provide even the option to do this. (The
i386/amd64 installer images might at least be usable as multiarch APT
sources though.) So this is a
Processing control commands:
reassign -1 general
Bug #697270 [kernel-image] PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Warning: Unknown package 'kernel-image'
Bug reassigned from package 'kernel-image' to 'general'.
No longer marked as found in versions 3.2.0.
Ignoring request to alter fixed
Hi Gergely,
if you take the effort to reassign to general, why dont you lower the severity
as well?
And, if you explain how this is a user error, why dont you close it straight
away?
cheers,
Holger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi Gergelzz :-)
On Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013, Gergelzz Nagy wrote:
Because I haven't slept this year yet, and I forgot to change the Cc: to
-done@, and there's been about 5 minutes between the Control: header and
the rest of my mail, during which I completely forgot about the
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
Hi Gergely,
if you take the effort to reassign to general, why dont you lower the
severity
as well?
And, if you explain how this is a user error, why dont you close it straight
away?
Because I haven't slept this year yet, and I forgot to
User error? Huh ?
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST.
This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
--
-Alexey Eromenko Technologov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on
this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko Technologov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On 01/04/2013 01:02 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on
this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ?
It all depends.
How did you even install Firefox 32 bits? We don't have such a
package in Debian. It's rebranded as
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
apt-get install iceweasel
and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
Not, because my job requires the latest FireFox (latest-and-greatest).
And the
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes:
User error? Huh ?
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST.
This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary
doesn't exist. I
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
--
-Alexey Eromenko Technologov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
apt-get install iceweasel
and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
Not,
On 01/04/2013 01:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
apt-get install iceweasel
and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
Not, because my job requires the
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes:
User error? Huh ?
It is, I'm afraid.
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
No, it is not.
Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES
EXIST.
It does not. However, the file the message is referring to is not the
file you think it refers
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes:
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
Debian provides LSB compliance via the lsb set of packages. Not everyone
wants to have all LSB packages installed or particularly cares about LSB
compliance. If you do:
aptitude install
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote:
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit
Debian installation, it's because the support is not added into
default installation as the feature
Le jeudi, 3 janvier 2013 18.44:59, Alexey Eromenko a écrit :
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
By the way:
* Debian is not LSB-certified
* ... but the lsb-* packages try to provide a working implementation.
No work has been attempted to provide Multi-Arch lsb packages
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote:
release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make
Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel feature ?
I recommend: tasksel to install 32-bit
clone 697270 -1
retitle -1 misleading error message when ELF interpreter does not exist
reassign -1 bash
severity -1 normal
merge -1 609882
retitle 697270 i386 multiarch not enabled and ia32-libs not installed by
default on amd64
severity 697270 minor
tags 697270 +wontfix
thanks
Hi Alexey,
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
clone 697270 -1
Bug #697270 {Done: Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org} [general] PC 32-bit
programs fails to work on amd64
Bug 697270 cloned as bug 697299
retitle -1 misleading error message when ELF interpreter does not exist
Bug #697299 {Done
Timo Weingärtner t...@tiwe.de writes:
2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes:
User error? Huh ?
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST.
This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
I guess it
Hallo Russ Allbery,
2013-01-03 um 19:26:46 schriebst Du:
Timo Weingärtner t...@tiwe.de writes:
2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com writes:
User error? Huh ?
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact
Timo Weingärtner t...@tiwe.de writes:
Hallo Russ Allbery,
I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open
the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in
order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode
understanding of ELF binary layout
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a
binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as
Linux has existed.
That's already reported as bug #609882.
I think that's asking quite a
On 01/03/2013 02:16 PM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote:
release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to
make
Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
How about changing it from a kernel bug to
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:01:26AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko al4...@gmail.com wrote:
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit
Debian installation, it's because
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote:
release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to
make
Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
How about changing it from a kernel bug to
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Debian clearly says: File does not exist, while in fact it DOES EXIST.
This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
I guess it is bash telling you that.
That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a
binary
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:02PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
You installed a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system. That will only
work if you also install the 32-bit supporting libraries, including the
dynamic linker. This is not a bug in Debian.
And no, installing 32-bit libraries by
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:35:43PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:02PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
You installed a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system. That will only
work if you also install the 32-bit supporting libraries, including the
dynamic linker. This is
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:43:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
The problem to be solved is that ISVs provide binaries for Linux i386
and our users want to run them on amd64. LSB, x32 and ARM are
completely irrelevant - the important thing is to make it easy to
install whatever libraries those
32 matches
Mail list logo
