Re: ETA amd-64 Java And Flash
Le mercredi 14 mars 2007 à 13:15 +1100, Hamish Moffatt a écrit : > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:22:33PM -0500, Karl Schmidt wrote: > > Sadly, there are way to many sites that >require< flash and java is just > > unavoidable. > > ? Java is more avoidable than flash, IME. Well, some people would argue that Flash is hardly used for anything else than stupid games and advertisement while Java is not. But we tend to see everyday less Java applets (while Java is really used on webapps containers, but this surely works for ages on AMD64). > Hamish -- Jérôme Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BeezNest -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to build OOo2 in an x86 chroot
Le samedi 05 novembre 2005 à 01:03 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:02:10AM +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > > better solution would be to get it to properly use > > > dpkg-architecture. > > Well, I guess that getting it included upstream is excluded, so if would > > need a Debian patch. But for how many files? There are probably a lot, > > don't you think? > > Are you using the debian source, or direct upstream source? debian source. > Normally what you do is call the configure script with the build > arch, and that _should_ be all you have to do. This basicly > looks something like in a debian/rules file (for autoconf >= > 2.50): Well, we are talking about OOo here, it is not fully migrated to autoconf/automake. There is even a whole lot of use of dmake (and not GNU make). > ifeq ($(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE), $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)) > confflags += --build $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) > else > confflags += --build $(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE) --host $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) > endif It seems really easy like this. But OOo is still not fully using those. > ./configure $(confflags) other options > > The call with --host is for cross building. This is not what > you're doing, and it even behaves different if you do that. > > So the proper way to call it would be: > ./configure --build i486-linux-gnu > > It seems that the Debian openoffice.org package isn't doing this, > and it really should. It is, but the sources of OOo do not necessarily get this information from the same source. I guess it will go better and better with time... > Kurt
Re: Trying to build OOo2 in an x86 chroot
Le samedi 05 novembre 2005 à 00:02 +0100, Jérôme Warnier a écrit : > Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:27 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:16:50PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote: > > > I'm trying to backport OOo2 to Sarge for x86 on a Debian Sarge for > > > AMD64. > > > I setup a chroot which works perfectly: > > > $ dpkg --print-architecture > > > i386 > > > > It somehow seems to think it's building for x86_64 anyway. > > My first guess would be that something checks the output of > > uname. You can work around this with the linux32 util. The > In which package can I find this "linux32"? In reply to myself: 'in the package "linux32"', idiot! Why do you even ask? > > better solution would be to get it to properly use > > dpkg-architecture. > Well, I guess that getting it included upstream is excluded, so if would > need a Debian patch. But for how many files? There are probably a lot, > don't you think? > > > Kurt
Re: Trying to build OOo2 in an x86 chroot
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:27 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:16:50PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote: > > I'm trying to backport OOo2 to Sarge for x86 on a Debian Sarge for > > AMD64. > > I setup a chroot which works perfectly: > > $ dpkg --print-architecture > > i386 > > It somehow seems to think it's building for x86_64 anyway. > My first guess would be that something checks the output of > uname. You can work around this with the linux32 util. The In which package can I find this "linux32"? > better solution would be to get it to properly use > dpkg-architecture. Well, I guess that getting it included upstream is excluded, so if would need a Debian patch. But for how many files? There are probably a lot, don't you think? > Kurt
Re: Proprietary kernel module with Debian i386 system and AMD64 kernel
[..] > > Now, I have another problem with it: > > > > XserverY:~/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64# make kernel26 > > make -C /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8/ here=$(pwd)/ SUBDIRS= > > $(pwd) modules > > make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8' > > CC [M] /root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64/aksparpub.o > > cc1: error: code model `kernel' not supported in the 32 bit mode > > make[2]: *** [/root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64/aksparpub.o] Error 1 > > make[1]: *** [_module_/root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64] Error 2 > > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8' > > make: *** [kernel26] Error 2 > > > > I guess this is because the compiler should try to cross-compile it. How > > can I get out of this? > > If it helps, I have acces to other Debian AMD64-installed machines. > > I tried the following, without much success: > CC="gcc-3.4 -m64" ARCH="x86_64" make kernel26 I could get it to build in an AMD64 chroot finally, but using this command instead: make CC=gcc-3.4 ARCH=x86_64 kernel26 > > Thanks > > > > [..] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proprietary kernel module with Debian i386 system and AMD64 kernel
Le samedi 22 octobre 2005 à 12:03 +0200, Jérôme Warnier a écrit : > Le samedi 22 octobre 2005 à 03:45 -0500, Alexander Charbonnet a écrit : > > A 64-bit kernel does give you the option of running 32- or 64-bit > > executables, > > true. But everything that's part of the kernel itself, including loadable > > modules, must be the same as the rest of the kernel. > > > > > > On Saturday 22 October 2005 03:18 am, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > > Le samedi 22 octobre 2005 à 03:01 -0500, Alexander Charbonnet a écrit : > > > > When you're running a 64-bit kernel, like > > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8, > > > > you must use a 64-bit kernel module. > > > > > > That's what I thought, but it was not perfectly clear to me and as the > > > machine is pretty far from me, I wanted to avoid any problem. > > > All this 64bits kernel mode and and 32bits user mode is quite confusing > > > for > > > me... > > > > > > > On Saturday 22 October 2005 02:50 am, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > > > > On one of my systems, I'm using Debian for i386, and I'm thinking > > > > > about > > > > > going to kernel package "kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8". > > > > > The main reason I'm using Debian for i386 is that I need a proprietary > > > > > kernel module. > > > > > This kernel module is available for both x86 and AMD64, so I wonder > > > > > which one I should use with the above-mentioned kernel. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > Now, I have another problem with it: > > XserverY:~/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64# make kernel26 > make -C /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8/ here=$(pwd)/ SUBDIRS= > $(pwd) modules > make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8' > CC [M] /root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64/aksparpub.o > cc1: error: code model `kernel' not supported in the 32 bit mode > make[2]: *** [/root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64/aksparpub.o] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [_module_/root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8' > make: *** [kernel26] Error 2 > > I guess this is because the compiler should try to cross-compile it. How > can I get out of this? > If it helps, I have acces to other Debian AMD64-installed machines. I tried the following, without much success: CC="gcc-3.4 -m64" ARCH="x86_64" make kernel26 > Thanks > > [..]
Re: Proprietary kernel module with Debian i386 system and AMD64 kernel
Le samedi 22 octobre 2005 à 03:45 -0500, Alexander Charbonnet a écrit : > A 64-bit kernel does give you the option of running 32- or 64-bit > executables, > true. But everything that's part of the kernel itself, including loadable > modules, must be the same as the rest of the kernel. > > > On Saturday 22 October 2005 03:18 am, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > Le samedi 22 octobre 2005 à 03:01 -0500, Alexander Charbonnet a écrit : > > > When you're running a 64-bit kernel, like kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8, > > > you must use a 64-bit kernel module. > > > > That's what I thought, but it was not perfectly clear to me and as the > > machine is pretty far from me, I wanted to avoid any problem. > > All this 64bits kernel mode and and 32bits user mode is quite confusing for > > me... > > > > > On Saturday 22 October 2005 02:50 am, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > > > On one of my systems, I'm using Debian for i386, and I'm thinking about > > > > going to kernel package "kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8". > > > > The main reason I'm using Debian for i386 is that I need a proprietary > > > > kernel module. > > > > This kernel module is available for both x86 and AMD64, so I wonder > > > > which one I should use with the above-mentioned kernel. > > > > > > > > Thanks Now, I have another problem with it: XserverY:~/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64# make kernel26 make -C /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8/ here=$(pwd)/ SUBDIRS= $(pwd) modules make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8' CC [M] /root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64/aksparpub.o cc1: error: code model `kernel' not supported in the 32 bit mode make[2]: *** [/root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64/aksparpub.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [_module_/root/aksparlnx-1.6-x86_64] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8' make: *** [kernel26] Error 2 I guess this is because the compiler should try to cross-compile it. How can I get out of this? If it helps, I have acces to other Debian AMD64-installed machines. Thanks [..]
Re: Proprietary kernel module with Debian i386 system and AMD64 kernel
Le samedi 22 octobre 2005 à 03:01 -0500, Alexander Charbonnet a écrit : > When you're running a 64-bit kernel, like kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8, you > must use a 64-bit kernel module. That's what I thought, but it was not perfectly clear to me and as the machine is pretty far from me, I wanted to avoid any problem. All this 64bits kernel mode and and 32bits user mode is quite confusing for me... > On Saturday 22 October 2005 02:50 am, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > On one of my systems, I'm using Debian for i386, and I'm thinking about > > going to kernel package "kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8". > > The main reason I'm using Debian for i386 is that I need a proprietary > > kernel module. > > This kernel module is available for both x86 and AMD64, so I wonder > > which one I should use with the above-mentioned kernel. > > > > Thanks
Proprietary kernel module with Debian i386 system and AMD64 kernel
On one of my systems, I'm using Debian for i386, and I'm thinking about going to kernel package "kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8". The main reason I'm using Debian for i386 is that I need a proprietary kernel module. This kernel module is available for both x86 and AMD64, so I wonder which one I should use with the above-mentioned kernel. Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Double problem with KDM
[..] > - At this point appears the second problem: after validating my username > and password, the kdm window disappears... and appears again. I can > never get the desktop running. Just read thread "can't connect to ANY desktop !" on this ml. > On the other hand, such troubles do not happen at all with gdm. > > Does anyone have already seen these symptoms? (Is it serious, doc?) > > Thanks for any help, > - Emmanuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
[..] As a start, does anyone know exactly how Solaris does, and can explain it to whoever is interested in learning about multiarch? Wouldn't that be interesting? > Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
[..] > But you don't realy gain anything by multiarch for amd64. Only 3 > things come to my mind: OpenOffice, Flash support and w32codecs + > 32bit mplayer. And only OO is in Debian. And OOo 2.0, which is due really soon, will natively support 64-bits architectures. > MfG > Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading i386 from amd64
Le mercredi 29 juin 2005 à 00:58 +0300, Leoman HEDE a écrit : > Hi all > > I have a small problem. > I was install sarge from this image > http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/sarge-amd64/iso-cd/ and > 2.6.8-11-em64t-p4-smp kernel on DELL PE2850 Xeon 64bit. > I try installing HLDS (Half Life Game Server) but i get following errors > > olympos:/game/leoman# ./hldsupdatetool.bin > -bash: ./hldsupdatetool.bin: No such file or directory Let me guess, this hldsupdatetool.bin is a shell script? If so, are you sure it's not simply in DOS-format (meaning the end of lines are of DOS-style)? To check that open hldsupdatetool.bin with VIM for example, and look at the lowest line of the screen if there is some "[dos]" appearing. > and i install debootstrap and i386 sarge, i use chroot, mount /game > partition and try install HLDS and i get no error. Installing process > normally. > > I will downgrading sarge x86 from debian amd64 > > I try changing sources.list > > deb http://ftp.tr.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib > deb-src http://ftp.tr.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib > > I try #apt-get update and I get following errors > > Failed to fetch > http://ftp.tr.debian.org/debian/dists/sarge/main/binary-amd64/Packages.gz > 404 Not Found > Failed to fetch > http://ftp.tr.debian.org/debian/dists/sarge/contrib/binary-amd64/Packages.gz > 404 Not Found > Reading Package Lists... Done > > apt added "binary-amd64" automatically. > > I couldn't find this phrase in apt config files > > how should i configure the ape for this? > if i'll apply this can full system work regularly? >
Re: Request: please change reply to in this mailing list
Le dimanche 27 février 2005 à 13:22 -0500, Javier Kohen a écrit : > Doesn't your e-mail client have a "Reply [to] all" feature? Far better: a "Reply to list" which only replies to the mailing-list, and nor bothers the sender more, nor forces you to cut and paste addresses between boxes. > Erik Norman wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I want to suggest to change/add an answer to > > debian-amd64@lists.debian.org, instead of being forced to add it myself > > everytime. It has already happened that I have answered just to who > > wrote the mail, not to the mailing list. > > > > I am into other mailing lists as well, they ALL have this "feature". > > > > Thanks, > > Erik
Re: How to recognize an Intel with EM64T extensions enabled?
Le samedi 05 février 2005 à 02:23 +, Paul Brook a écrit : > On Saturday 05 February 2005 02:00, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > Is there a way to figure, on a running system, if the processor features > > the EM64T extensions? > > uname -m tells you if you're running an x86-64 kernel. I don't want to know things about the system (the system in a x86 32bits Debian), but about the actual CPU in the machine. > The "lm" flag in /proc/cpuinfo tells you if the cpu is 64-bit (long mode) > capable. I guess it won't work if the kernel is not already compiled for x86-64. > Paul
How to recognize an Intel with EM64T extensions enabled?
Is there a way to figure, on a running system, if the processor features the EM64T extensions? In /proc/cpuinfo maybe? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu with AMD64 Support
Le mardi 01 février 2005 à 12:14 +, Daniel James a écrit : > Hi Jérôme, > > > The rebranding of Debian you describe has been going on > > > for some time, since the launch of Lindows at least, I'd say. > > > > Corel Linux was the first, I think. > > You could be right - I think I met someone from Corel back in '99 who > showed me something like KDE 1 on a 2.2 kernel. Of course it was sold > to Xandros later, so in that sense it's still going. Yes, and honestly, it was a failure. It was worst than the original Debian it came from. > Cheers > > Daniel
Re: Ubuntu with AMD64 Support
[..] > Windows users don't expect to help other users either - by their > numbers alone, you would expect there to be a massive amount of > user-made documentation available, but in my experience there's > probably better quality and more detailed help available online for > any of the popular Linux distributions. Also because you can see *exactly* what the software does, and even contact directly the upstream author. That's simply amazing! Most proprietary software companies will find it really hard to let you talk with their developers, especially about a bug in their software. They will sometimes even sue you for that. > Cheers > > Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tracking sarge
Le vendredi 04 février 2005 à 10:01 -0500, Kurt Yoder a écrit : > > > > > I did this last week and ran into trouble. I could no longer use the > > > iptables binary, though the module was loading fine. I also was > unable > > > to install new kernels because something about the initrd installer > > > didn't like the new 64-bit kernel. > > > > The iptables problems is known. You need a 64bit iptables. > > Do you know where this is? I tried compiling from source, but still get > the error. I assume it's because I'm still compiling using 32-bit > libraries. Yes, maybe the amd64-libs-lev package is what you need? Let me know if you do it and succeed. [..] > > It is possible with some glitches, like iptables or alsa not having a > > 32->64 bit translatio layer. > > I'm ok with alsa not working. Are there any other glitches that might > affect using this on a production server? I'm running only one Pure64 server (Apache 2.0, Glasnost, SpamAssassin, ...), without any problem. It is running only free software, though. > I guess what I really want to know is: what is the best way to get the > 64-bit performance advantages out of my hardware? I don't want glitches > with the software I'm running, such as Apache2, mod-perl, mysql, > postgres, and postfix. I would be OK with my currrent setup (32-bit > userland, 64-bit kernel), but it seems like there are reliability issues > doing this. Are these all taken care of by moving to 64-bit userland? > Are there any arguments *against* moving to 64-bit userland? Running proprietary software (user-land) not available for amd64, though it may be circumvented with the chroot technique. I manage another 3 Opteron boxes where I had to stay 32-bits because of a hardware lock with only available proprietary kernel module. There are some Java programs running on those too, and I felt not confident about running them on Pure64, and was in a hurry so could not test before-hand. Last but not least, I manage also one dual-Opteron box with Sarge x86 on a 64-bits kernel because of Java again. > Thanks for your answers so far
#293239 wu-ftpd: requires additional files in chroot on x86-64
I just wondered if you were keeping track of such bugs submitted in the official BTS (see subject of course)? Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tracking sarge
Le jeudi 03 février 2005 à 20:14 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > Kurt Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Alice Stamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Hello guys. > >> > > >> > Hopefully a quick question. > >> > > >> > I would like to use some AMD Opteron kit in production with Debian. > > I > >> > don't, therefore, fancy tracking unstable with these boxes. :) > >> > > >> > I want to track sarge with these computers. Is it possible to : > >> > > >> > - install Debian Sarge from the i386 iso > >> > >> yes > >> > >> > - using make-kpkg build a 64-bit kernel on the newly installed box > >> > for the AMD 64 bit platform. > >> > >> Not comfortably. > >> > >> apt-get install kernel-image-2.6-amd64- > >> kernel-image-2.6-amd64-generic kernel-image-2.6-amd64-k8-smp > >> kernel-image-2.6-amd64-k8 kernel-image-2.6-amd64-xeon > > > > I did this last week and ran into trouble. I could no longer use the > > iptables binary, though the module was loading fine. I also was unable > > to install new kernels because something about the initrd installer > > didn't like the new 64-bit kernel. > > The iptables problems is known. You need a 64bit iptables. Any easy solution? Is there a package somewhere? In Sarge? > The initrd on the other hand should work. What was the error? > > > From what I'd read in previous threads on this list, I got the > > impression that "mix and match" using 32 bit user-space and 64-bit > > kernel would not work. I had actually planned to reinstall using the > > amd64 Debian installer. So if my understanding is incorrect and it is > > indeed possible to use a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit user-space, I'd like > > to know about it... > > It is possible with some glitches, like iptables or alsa not having a > 32->64 bit translatio layer. Nothing else? Thanks a lot for the good work! > MfG > Goswin
Re: libgjc*
Le mardi 01 février 2005 à 14:28 +0100, Philippe Amelant a écrit : > Hi > > please where is the libgjc* ? > apt-cache found it but apt-get give 404 error ? > (on different mirrors) Don't you simply mean libgcj* ? > thank > > -- > Philippe Amelant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ubuntu with AMD64 Support
[..] > I agree that's a potential challenge to Debian's democratic structure > if the community process is bypassed whenver it suits the company > concerned. The rebranding of Debian you describe has been going on > for some time, since the launch of Lindows at least, I'd say. Back in Corel Linux was the first, I think. > the late 90's I remember several thinly-disguised Red Hat rip-offs - > all gone now. > > Cheers > > Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Working ia32-linux chroot image
Le dim 24/10/2004 à 07:45, Peter Nelson a écrit : > Bob Proulx wrote: > > >Peter Nelson wrote: > > > > > >>After a bit of tweaking I've gotten what I think is the smallest > >>chroot that will still allow you to use apt-get and dpkg. > >> > >> > > > >You did not say but what was the final amount of disk space that you > >were able to reduce your minimum system down to? My barebones > >debootstrap install is around 110MB. But of course after I install > >various libraries and packages such as mozilla-firefox and > >openoffice.org the size is much larger. (I am running the 32-bit web > >browsers to allow me to use 32-bit binary plugins. And similar > >reasons for openoffice.org.) > > > > > The compressed size is 20mb and it extracts out to ~70mb but it balloons > up to ~100mb once you do the first `apt-get update` and it builds the > package lists. My current chroot is ~200mb after installing a bunch of > libraries for mplayer. > > >>Since it took me a while to build (debian depends don't work when > >>you're removing half the base system) > >> > >> > >Does this statement mean that depends is broken in the resulting > >image? Or only that it was difficult to get to the result because of > >the dependencies? > > > > > Depends work in the resulting image. My problem was that packages only > depend of binarys required to run the program, not side programs that > are called. At first I just installed bash, apt, and dpkg with their > direct dependencies. Dpkg ran but couldn't install anything because it > calls tar and gzip and some packages use grep or perl in their install > scripts, but don't depend on them. Overall I think this only shows up Your dependency problem is due to packages marked "essential" for Debian, that you did not care about. They need to be installed for everything in Debian to work. Maybe you should try to fix things to remove some of those dependencies? To find a list of those, install package "grep-dctrl" and run the following command: $ grep-available -F Essential yes -s Package | cut -b10- > when doing as minimal of an install as I did so I don't think it's worth > the effort to fix. [..] Hope it helps -- Jérôme Warnier Consultant BeezNest http://beeznest.net
Re: Fr keytable in X11.
Le lun 06/09/2004 à 17:41, Ludovic watteaux a écrit :
> Hi everybody !
>
> I've a problem with my keytable in X11 but not in a console tty.
>
> I can't use the Alt Gr key to tape the characteres : ~#{[|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'm a French user and a use the latin1 (102 keys) because the latin9
> with Euro work without the shift key in X11, thus it's worse.
My guess is you should use pc104 or pc105 keys.
> I've try "dpkg-reconfigure -plow console-data" with the 3 frenchs
> possibilitty in azerty.
>
> Which is the solution to have the same keytable in X11 as in console
> tty ?
>
> If anybody know and can help me.
>
> Greetings.
>
> Lud.
--
Jérôme Warnier
Consultant
BeezNest
http://beeznest.net
Re: Compiler opt
[..] > Is it correct that both em64t and amd64 have sse2? (Don't quiz me on > what exactly that is yet... I'm a beginner in that area. I'll find it > on my own... unless yous can recommend a good book on the subject?) Yes, they both have. Or AMD is advertising it and lying. ;-) > > If you're asking for binaries for a particular CPU, this something entirely > > different, and is not specific to AMD64. The same applies to i386 vs i686 > > vs > > k7, armv4 vs armv5 vs xscale, and probably most other architectures. > > Do you know if there are plans to, or any real reason to, create a > libc6-amd64 package? Aren't you just looking for amd64-libs? [..] -- Jérôme Warnier Consultant BeezNest http://beeznest.net
Re: OpenOffice: broken dependency?
Le jeu 26/08/2004 à 13:50, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > Sebastian Steinlechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 12:34, Sebastian Steinlechner wrote: > > > >> So, could someone please rebuild the debian-files package to not depend > >> on openoffice.org-bin, but openoffice.org instead? > > > > I just realised that this is wrong of course. Further inspection showed > > that the -bin package is still needed, the "replaced by" thingy referred > > to an older version. > > > > So, I need the openoffice.org-bin package. Where would I get that? > I think its binary-all and you can get it from ftp.debian.org. The OO > debs for amd64 aren't realy done yet or they would have been added to > themain archive. Its work in progress. Proof of concept quality. There is no plan upstream for a 64bits-clean OOo before 2.0 anyway. I hope you can help them to fix it before 2.0 release. > MfG > Goswin -- Jérôme Warnier Consultant BeezNest http://beeznest.net
Re: Prob with modules 2.6.7
Le lun 09/08/2004 à 13:07, Ludovic watteaux a écrit : > Hi Frederik, > > > do you have hotplug installed? this might load all those modules for > > you. > > Yes Hotplug is install and launch the modules. > For now i turn it off and put the good modules in the /etc/modules > It's ok now evrything work fine. Why didn't you just blacklist them by putting something in /etc/hotplug/blacklist.d (or /etc/hotplug/blacklist, which I would not recommend)? I think using hotplug is now standard way of doing things. > Thanks a lot. > > Greetings. > > Ludovic Watteaux -- Jérôme Warnier Consultant BeezNest http://beeznest.net
