On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 07:55:00AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> OK, sorry for the confusion but I really didn't want to see Aurélien
> just stop this work which I'm pretty sure he's doing well.
>
> For dpkg, I think I've seen some discussion but Guillem Jover and/or
> Frank Lichtenheld have p
(restricting the CC list to real lists)
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 07:45:16AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > > After a discussion on IRC, it seems there is no consensus about how
> > > multiarch should be done. Therefore I stop working on that (p
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 07:45:16AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > After a discussion on IRC, it seems there is no consensus about how
> > multiarch should be done. Therefore I stop working on that (patches are
> > still welcome for glibc).
> Is this really the best thing to do?
> Even tho
> After a discussion on IRC, it seems there is no consensus about how
> multiarch should be done. Therefore I stop working on that (patches are
> still welcome for glibc).
Is this really the best thing to do?
Even though there is no consensus (I overread the thread and anyway
most parts of it
Bdale Garbee writes:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 01:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > The only change planned is to make libc6-dev-i386 and libc6-i386 provide
> > a glibc on amd64 instead of ia32-libs. It will be in /emul/ia32-linux (I
> > still have to find how to do that cleanly in the debhelp
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 01:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The only change planned is to make libc6-dev-i386 and libc6-i386 provide
> a glibc on amd64 instead of ia32-libs. It will be in /emul/ia32-linux (I
> still have to find how to do that cleanly in the debhelper files).
>
> Bdale, do you a
Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:58:15PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.
Bdale Garbee a écrit :
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't mak
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:58:15PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.
> Bdale Garbee a écrit :
> >On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't make the amd64 port
Hi!
Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.
Bdale Garbee a écrit :
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't make the amd64 port
compliant with the FHS, which is almost impossible given the current
setup
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't make the amd64 port
> compliant with the FHS, which is almost impossible given the current
> setup, ie 64-bit libraries in /lib. However, it would make it compliant
> with the part of the FH
Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
If there's
consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than
/emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward.
My se
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If there's
> > consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than
> > /emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward.
> My sense is that the "c
Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
If there's
consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than
/emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward.
My sense i
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> In the end, I'd like to get rid of ia32-libs, and have it be a
> dummy package. But on the other hand, I don't want to make a
> biarch version of things like the X libraries.
you can't get rid of it on ia64 unless you either drop the 32bit
support or else you provide a cross
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If there's
> > consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than
> > /emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward.
>
> My sense is that the
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If there's
> consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than
> /emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward.
My sense is that the "concensus" that exists is around FHS compliance.
While I personally consi
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:59:54AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The amd64 port is currently providing 32-bit libraries via the ia32-libs
> package. This package was originally designed for ia64, and thus install
> 32-bit libraries in /emul/ia32-linux/ . This is not compliant with the
> FHS for a
Hi all,
The amd64 port is currently providing 32-bit libraries via the ia32-libs
package. This package was originally designed for ia64, and thus install
32-bit libraries in /emul/ia32-linux/ . This is not compliant with the
FHS for amd64. Note also that this package does not rebuild the
libraries
18 matches
Mail list logo
