At 11:29 -0700 1998-10-17, Matt McLean wrote:
The most obvious one is that not every architecture has an 'egcc', because
egcs is the main compiler. So, we shouldn't be setting $CC.
That is not correct, the latest egcs packages provide a 'egcc' symlink on
every architecture.
--
Joel Klecker (aka
At 21:19 +0200 1998-10-10, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 09, J.H.M. Dassen Ray\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an
On 11 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely
Santiago a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers.
What does not work for you using kernel-package on newer
kernels? I have never had a problem, so far, all
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely
Santiago a lot of work, since there are a lot of new drivers.
What does not work for you using kernel-package on newer
kernels? I have never had a problem,
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:11:10PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.
Joey, that's exaggerated by a lot. But I agree with your reasoning-
I agree with Joey completely,
Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
package.
What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.
Mike Stone
At 13:13 +0200 1998-10-09, J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\) wrote:
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of the libc6.1 using ports.
glibc 2.1 (2.0.9x until release) does not change the soname, symbol
versioning prevents that
At 21:19 +0200 1998-10-10, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In the next weeks my site will go on the 6bone and I plan using debian
for our IPv6 gateway box. Where can I find a libc6.1 for intel?
Will the current netutils just work with IPv6 after recompiling or
do I have to patch it?
My glibc-pre2.1 packaging
Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
package.
What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.
What needs to be
Quoting Buddha Buck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
package.
What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
adds value, but I don't think it's something we
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 02:34:28PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
package.
I still think that calling slink a badly needed cleanup implies that
hamm is horribly broken. I
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
with 2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
A little tiny line in
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Well, kernel-package is a single package but it would be surely a lot of
work, since there are a lot of new drivers.
It works like a charm with 2.1.x kernels. (Kudos to Manoj!)
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:09:56PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:42:24PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with
2.2 properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine
with
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:28:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
various compilation of programs.
I thought that was part of the idea of the glibc 2 header stuff..
Yes and no. There are some programs that depend on actual kernel headers.
I agree with Joey, kernel 2.2 should not go as
Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
But some cannot be ported at the moment: iBCS!
On Oct 09, J.H.M. Dassen Ray\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of the
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
towards 2.2.0?
Thanks.
Zephaniah E, Hull..
pgpL2Z9IpY4sx.pgp
Description: PGP
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:40:54AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In light of the perl issues (see my last message)
A bug report has been submitted to ftp.debian.org to put the previous
version back, which means the perl issues need not be dealt with in the
current development cycle.
and the
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
towards 2.2.0?
I don't think this
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
I do run 2.1.124 on my laptop and am really impressed by this
kernel. It uses less memory
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of
On 9 Oct 1998, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
Well,
On Fri 09 Oct 1998, J.H.M. Dassen Ray wrote:
and the message Linus just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and
2.2.0p1 could the freeze be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY
re-target slink towards 2.2.0?
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to
Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
2.1.x (which I suspect quite a few developers run).
Things like smbfsx that have 2.0 and 2.1
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On 9 Oct 1998, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:42:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
2.1.x (which I suspect quite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
towards 2.2.0?
No, this would hold the release for at
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is why I asked for another week to see IF we need to re-target,
instead of asking for a re-target now..
Bogus argument. Kernels do not have a set release date, and 2.2 will take
a couple of weeks, esp. since there will probably be a couple of
pre2.2
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have to do that anyways for 2.0.36..
Only recompile, to work with 2.1 expect to fix a lot of code..
When did we get sound modules? With 2.2.0 we could actually have some!!
shameless plug You did know we have alsa packages, right? And they
even work with
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with.
I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will
be problems.
I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick.
Agreed. There are
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 01:18:46PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
I do run 2.1.124 on my laptop and am really impressed by this
kernel. It uses less memory and runs smoother under heavy load than
any kernel I've ever used.
I have to agree. 124 is great on my notebook too. I'm just compiling 125.
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:40:54AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
towards 2.2.0?
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.
Joey, that's exaggerated by a lot. But I agree with your reasoning-
. We have several kernel module package that need to be re-packaged.
. We have to rework on the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:06:30PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:40:54AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back
38 matches
Mail list logo
