On Sat, 18 May 2013 01:36:02 +0200
Adam Borowski 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 side of a combi
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
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 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 "emulat
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
>
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 ma
On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:43:05 -0400, The Wanderer 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 wine32:i386 any di
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 poor
+++ 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 officia
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 intermedi
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 get
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 invo
+++ 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, w
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 I
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:
> > > >
> > >
Goswin von Brederlow 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, email to de
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 dependen
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:
> >>
> >>
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 th
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:
> >>
+++ 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 archiv
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:
>
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 rea
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:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/te
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
Architecture: amd64
Depends: libc6-i386 (>= 2.1.3), libice6:i386 (>= 1:1.0.0),
25 matches
Mail list logo
