Hi,
(2011-03-21 20:39 +), Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:18 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Why does this patch add a new config file rather than referring to
powerpc/config and powerpc/config.powerpc64?
Well, I used the same files as powerpc port for the time being.
I think
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 20:47 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote:
Hi,
(2011-03-21 20:39 +), Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:18 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Why does this patch add a new config file rather than referring to
powerpc/config and powerpc/config.powerpc64?
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:21 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote:
Hi,
(2011年03月20日 12:22), Ben Hutchings wrote:
Please support ppc64.
Is 'ppc64' an official port yet?
No, not 'official' port now.
However, considerable parts of the environment for ppc64 port still
remain in the
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:18 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:21 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote:
Hi,
(2011年03月20日 12:22), Ben Hutchings wrote:
Please support ppc64.
Is 'ppc64' an official port yet?
No, not 'official' port now.
However, considerable
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.38-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
Please support ppc64.
Regards,
--
Hiroyuki Yamamoto
A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA 91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC
diff -Nurd linux-2.6-2.6.38.orig/debian/changelog linux-2.6-2.6.38/debian/changelog
---
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 10:56 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.38-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
Please support ppc64.
Is 'ppc64' an official port yet?
Why does this patch add a new config file rather than referring to
powerpc/config and
Hi,
(2011年03月20日 12:22), Ben Hutchings wrote:
Please support ppc64.
Is 'ppc64' an official port yet?
No, not 'official' port now.
However, considerable parts of the environment for ppc64 port still remain in
the packaging system.
Why does this patch add a new config file rather than
7 matches
Mail list logo
