chroot question
I posted this on Debian-user list, but thought someone here might have tried this already... I have a amd64 install of debian with a 32bit chroot for a couple of apps. This works great, but I have a question. Is it possible to have an application inside the 32bit chroot launch an application on my main 64 bit system? (e.g. a photo browsing program in the 32bit chroot launching gimp, which is installed in my main 64 bit system). I currently launch my 32bit programs with schroot and am hoping I can set something to make specific programs outside the chroot available... I cannot think of how this can be achieved, so any ideas are welcomed. Regards, Anton -- Anton Piatek email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog/photos:http://www.strangeparty.com pgp: [0xB307BAEF] (http://tastycake.net/~anton/anton.asc) fingerprint: 116A 5F01 1E5F 1ADE 78C6 EDB3 B9B6 E622 B307 BAEF --- -- Anton Piatek email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog/photos:http://www.strangeparty.com pgp: [0xB307BAEF] (http://tastycake.net/~anton/anton.asc) fingerprint: 116A 5F01 1E5F 1ADE 78C6 EDB3 B9B6 E622 B307 BAEF pgp8aVxV9hjHf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: please build core++ and cgal on amd64
Hi, >>It might not list a machine, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. I >>think we have one, but I'm not 100% sure. The stats it's showing also >>don't make any sense at all. I don't think there is one. Otherwise, the machine is totally overloaded since the packages would have been in the queue for 1.5 months now. I will ping Andreas again. >>Anyway, it doesn't have "XS-Autobuild: yes" header, nor does it mention >>anything in the copyright file that gives me an indication that it's >>legal for me to actually upload a binary package. > > So core++ does have it, cgal doesn't. I of course only looked at cgal > before. core++ has the additional header and the notice in the copyright file because it was necessary to upload a new revision anyway. I locally made the same changes for cgal but don't think these changes warrant a new upload. The non-free buildd network does not require these changes for now, but strongly recommends them for the next upload. Just for the records: cgal is in non-free due to the QPL license. It is ok to autobuild the package and to upload binary packages to non-free. Cheers, Joachim -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please build core++ and cgal on amd64
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 01:51:10PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Joachim Reichel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html > > > > yes, I'm aware of the non-free buildd network, and both packages have > > already been built on other architectures. But as you can see on > > http://www.buildd.net/ there is currently no machine for non-free/amd64. > > It might not list a machine, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. I > think we have one, but I'm not 100% sure. The stats it's showing also > don't make any sense at all. > > Anyway, it doesn't have "XS-Autobuild: yes" header, nor does it mention > anything in the copyright file that gives me an indication that it's > legal for me to actually upload a binary package. So core++ does have it, cgal doesn't. I of course only looked at cgal before. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please build core++ and cgal on amd64
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Joachim Reichel wrote: > Hi, > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html > > yes, I'm aware of the non-free buildd network, and both packages have > already been built on other architectures. But as you can see on > http://www.buildd.net/ there is currently no machine for non-free/amd64. It might not list a machine, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. I think we have one, but I'm not 100% sure. The stats it's showing also don't make any sense at all. Anyway, it doesn't have "XS-Autobuild: yes" header, nor does it mention anything in the copyright file that gives me an indication that it's legal for me to actually upload a binary package. Please follow the guidelines in the above mail if you want someone to build it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual-core amd question
[Please don't top post] On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:33:22PM -0800, Francesco Pietra wrote: > Thank you. Then, one additional question that I forgot before. > Planning to replace the 1GB modules with 2GB modules, is that correct > to replace couples of modules (one left, one right) at different > times, and not all eigth modules at the same time? I plan to use the > machine with a mixture of 1G-1GB and 2GB-2GB couples of memory modules > until I get money to replace all. > > francesco pietra Hi, Your motherboard manual should have that info. -- Chris. == " ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness." Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please build core++ and cgal on amd64
Hi, > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html yes, I'm aware of the non-free buildd network, and both packages have already been built on other architectures. But as you can see on http://www.buildd.net/ there is currently no machine for non-free/amd64. I don't mind if this was for some rare architecture, but amd64 is more or less the second most important architecture, hence my request. Cheers, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
