On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 08:21:43AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[They had suggested building a full 32 bit chroot as per the
instructions on alioth - but I suggested this was significant overkill
for one app. :) ]
HTH someone :)
Unfortunately this is the case for more and more
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
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:42:48AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Will ia32-libs on ia64 still be supported for the etch release?
Matthias
I hope so or something that works just like it :) Commercial anti-virus
product Sophos SWEEP is mandatory on Unix/Linux/Windows where I work.
On
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 08:21:43AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:42:48AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Will ia32-libs on ia64 still be supported for the etch release?
I hope so or something that works just like it :) Commercial anti-virus
product Sophos SWEEP is
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 though
(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 (patches
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
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
compliant
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
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 agree
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 debhelper
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
