Re: beta status
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem with miboot is that there are 200 or so m68k instructions in the boot sector, which have not been changed since over 10 years probably, and probably nobody at appple even remembers them, and thus we are not shipping miboot even in non-free, while at the same time distributing it from people.debian.org. IIUC, Debian is already distributing Microsoft boot sector code in the ms-sys package. http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/ms-sys http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=694012group_id=59200atid=490228 pgptQPlZxZ4hO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: beta status
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 11:29:46AM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem with miboot is that there are 200 or so m68k instructions in the boot sector, which have not been changed since over 10 years probably, and probably nobody at appple even remembers them, and thus we are not shipping miboot even in non-free, while at the same time distributing it from people.debian.org. IIUC, Debian is already distributing Microsoft boot sector code in the ms-sys package. http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/ms-sys http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=694012group_id=59200atid=490228 Ah, interesting, but i wonder if it is code or just data, and what licence it comes under, will have a look. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:07:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 11:29:46AM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem with miboot is that there are 200 or so m68k instructions in the boot sector, which have not been changed since over 10 years probably, and probably nobody at appple even remembers them, and thus we are not shipping miboot even in non-free, while at the same time distributing it from people.debian.org. IIUC, Debian is already distributing Microsoft boot sector code in the ms-sys package. http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/ms-sys http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=694012group_id=59200atid=490228 Ah, interesting, but i wonder if it is code or just data, and what licence it comes under, will have a look. Notice that this may (or not) be a reimplemented boot record though, in which case this is ok. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the
archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is
linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or
at least used to distribute those in the woody times).
Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or at least used to distribute those in the woody times). Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix. which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-). Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib. contrib, and still we distribute it. and is libnix not kind of linked to some amigaos or amigarom parts ? No, you don't have to link to anything to make AmigaOS calls. All you need to know is that address 4 stores a pointer to exec.libary. Well, maybe, but that still counts as linking, i doubt there is any more philosophical difference in doing this than dynamically linking with a library. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the
archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is
linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute
those (or
at least used to distribute those in the woody times).
Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix.
which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but
It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-).
contrib, and still we distribute it. and is libnix not kind of linked to some
amigaos or amigarom parts ?
No, you don't have to link to anything to make AmigaOS calls. All you need to
know is that address 4 stores a pointer to exec.libary.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:27:52PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or at least used to distribute those in the woody times). Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix. which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-). Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib. There's also no Amigaos cross-gcc in Debian. Hehe, indeed, which is why it could only go to contrib. Same case as with miboot, since you need code-warrior 4 to build it on os X. Well, a bit less so since you can use gcc at least. contrib, and still we distribute it. and is libnix not kind of linked to some amigaos or amigarom parts ? No, you don't have to link to anything to make AmigaOS calls. All you need to know is that address 4 stores a pointer to exec.libary. Well, maybe, but that still counts as linking, i doubt there is any more philosophical difference in doing this than dynamically linking with a library. I think you can consider it the equivalent of a system call, i.e. normal usage of the OS API. Because of the system library exception in the GPL, yes. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it
into the
archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which
is
linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute
those (or
at least used to distribute those in the woody times).
Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix.
which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything
but
It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google
:-).
Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib.
There's also no Amigaos cross-gcc in Debian.
contrib, and still we distribute it. and is libnix not kind of linked to
some
amigaos or amigarom parts ?
No, you don't have to link to anything to make AmigaOS calls. All you need
to
know is that address 4 stores a pointer to exec.libary.
Well, maybe, but that still counts as linking, i doubt there is any more
philosophical difference in doing this than dynamically linking with a
library.
I think you can consider it the equivalent of a system call, i.e. normal usage
of the OS API.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:53:53AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or at least used to distribute those in the woody times). Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix. which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-). Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib. libnix is an AmigaOS library, and is available on aminet, which IIRC predates Debian by a couple of years. Do you want to ship all free software on aminet with Debian now, too? Well, it depends on stuff outside of main for use/build, so cannot go in main. http://main.aminet.net/dev/gcc/libnixV1_1.readme Short:A static library for gcc (V1.1) Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Type: dev/gcc Architecture: m68k-amigaos This is a new release of libnix - a static (link) library for gcc. Changes from the last release include mostly bug fixes but also a few new functions. Sources included. As you see, this is a library for use with gcc, the AmigaOS version, which I assume is free also, after all it is GNU gcc. gcc, and crossgcc, are available on Aminet also. So where exactly does amiboot become non-free here? I wouldn't mind if 90% of the debian archive contained Amiga software, it has been a while that I received free Aminet CDs, but I guess some other arches might not like that waste of archive space. Actually, i am arguing that we should extend the same courtesy to miboot. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or at least used to distribute those in the woody times). Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix. which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-). Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib. libnix is an AmigaOS library, and is available on aminet, which IIRC predates Debian by a couple of years. Do you want to ship all free software on aminet with Debian now, too? http://main.aminet.net/dev/gcc/libnixV1_1.readme Short:A static library for gcc (V1.1) Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Type: dev/gcc Architecture: m68k-amigaos This is a new release of libnix - a static (link) library for gcc. Changes from the last release include mostly bug fixes but also a few new functions. Sources included. As you see, this is a library for use with gcc, the AmigaOS version, which I assume is free also, after all it is GNU gcc. gcc, and crossgcc, are available on Aminet also. So where exactly does amiboot become non-free here? I wouldn't mind if 90% of the debian archive contained Amiga software, it has been a while that I received free Aminet CDs, but I guess some other arches might not like that waste of archive space. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote: It is an AmigaOS binary, built from free source with free compilers. So we just have to include all the free AmigaOS software to be able to ship a precompiled amiboot? As I said, no problem with me, maybe we include all free TOS and MacOS software as well, ataboot and Penguin have to be compiled somehow as well. So why not include aminet, and what ever are the counterparts for atari, mac, maybe C64, Pet2001, those were nice machines as well, and maybe we still use something that was first developed on one of those machines. Would be a big boost for the emulator packages that are already in debian, and free software is free software... In case you did not get it yet, I think this would be a stupid thing, debian is about Un*x, Linux, *BSD software. Do we have DOS compilers as well? What about loadlin? The source(!) package contains a compiled loadlin.exe, but it also contains the source. The makefile says: To compile with Borland TASM 3.1. In case that assembler is still available, is it free software? Don't you need to run DOS to use it? bcc = dos compiler included in debian. I have used it and it works. Of course it has no libs so you have to implement all the bios calls yourself to print output and such. Not sure if it is easier to use dos calls than bios calls since at the time I was more trying to write something I could run between the bios and the boot loader. In the end I added my code to grub instead. It was simpler. But I guess thats what the editorial changes were about, lets throw out all the documentation, that should free up lots of space which we can fill with useless (for debian) software. And while we are at it, let's shoot ourselves in the other foot as well by throwing out all the boatloaders... isn't loadlin used on every bootable i386 CD? No, syslinux/isolinux is. loadlin is for booting from dos, not directly. lilo is mostly assembly, and compiles fine from linux. grub is c and a little bit of assembly, and compiles fine from linux. loadlin is a dos program and does not compile fine from linux, unless making it work with bcc isn't a bit deal (which may be the case actually). Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:53:53AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote: Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or at least used to distribute those in the woody times). Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix. which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-). Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib. libnix is an AmigaOS library, and is available on aminet, which IIRC predates Debian by a couple of years. Do you want to ship all free software on aminet with Debian now, too? Well, it depends on stuff outside of main for use/build, so cannot go in main. It is an AmigaOS binary, built from free source with free compilers. So we just have to include all the free AmigaOS software to be able to ship a precompiled amiboot? As I said, no problem with me, maybe we include all free TOS and MacOS software as well, ataboot and Penguin have to be compiled somehow as well. So why not include aminet, and what ever are the counterparts for atari, mac, maybe C64, Pet2001, those were nice machines as well, and maybe we still use something that was first developed on one of those machines. Would be a big boost for the emulator packages that are already in debian, and free software is free software... In case you did not get it yet, I think this would be a stupid thing, debian is about Un*x, Linux, *BSD software. Do we have DOS compilers as well? What about loadlin? The source(!) package contains a compiled loadlin.exe, but it also contains the source. The makefile says: To compile with Borland TASM 3.1. In case that assembler is still available, is it free software? Don't you need to run DOS to use it? The main point is, do we ship it as part of the installer stuff, knowing it is needed to boot, or even worse in the case of miboot, it needs to be built into the images. The problem with miboot is that there are 200 or so m68k instructions in the boot sector, which have not been changed since over 10 years probably, and probably nobody at appple even remembers them, and thus we are not shipping miboot even in non-free, while at the same time distributing it from people.debian.org. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:17:22PM -0600, Eric Shattow wrote: I have used miBoot on a nubus ppc mac (6116cd) and it is not the optimal solution. My suggestion as a user is that you forget about using miBoot at all, and foster development for a new GPL'ed bootloader based on EMILE. Laurent (EMILE author) has said it is a matter of limited time that EMILE is not written to support ppc. Focus on EMILE for 68k and nubus ppc. Yeah, i know, but i have neither the time nor the hardware to do this, and notice that miboot is for oldworld powerpc, not nubus, and is here now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:08:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: installer/doc/devel/release-checklist as we can. At a minimum we need to make sure that businesscard, netinst, and full CDs (once we get some) work for i386 and powerpc and that the desktop task installs ok and works. Joeyh, i wonder what you expect to get tested with regard to old-world, since those floppies we have doesn't support miboot and have no chance of working. I think it would be actually better to completely remove them from the beta than try to claim we support this method while we do not. Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or at least used to distribute those in the woody times). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
An update on the d-i beta status. We're getting really close, AKA most things seem likely to work now. Ccing some other relevant lists. debian-boot: - Thanks to fjp, base-installer 1.35.4 should get d-i working again with secure apt and CDs, but we're currently mssing uploads of successful builds for 3 architectures. This is the last udeb we plan to put into testing for the beta, once it's built everywhere. Also, once this udeb does reach testing, it should be possible to do some etch_d-i CD installs and test things out. The fixed base-installer will reach testing with today's mirror sync. So within an hour or two (netboot etc) and after tonight's build (CDs) the etch d-i images can be used to test the beta and should actually work. Your testing and reports are appreciated, as we decide when to make the beta final. Some links for those images: floppy, netboot, etc: http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-$ARCH/ CD: http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/etch_d-i/ This is just a beta so I am not going to be too picky about testing, but it would be nice to fill out as much of installer/doc/devel/release-checklist as we can. At a minimum we need to make sure that businesscard, netinst, and full CDs (once we get some) work for i386 and powerpc and that the desktop task installs ok and works. alpha: - debian-installer FTBFS on alpha, but apparently only on the buildd. http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=debian-installerver=20051026arch=alphastamp=1130532682file=logas=raw We need this build if alpha will be in the beta. The other builds of 20051026 should be final for the beta, but still need to be installed and tested out. This is still a problem and I've seen no progress on this issue. Even someone doing a manual build and upload on alpha would probably be acceptable this point, (as long as you file a FTBFS bug too or something so we remember to investigate the buildd issue later..). amd64/debian-release: - amd64 CDs seem to be significantly broken, we've been getting many failure reports all week. (#336353, #335556, #335653, #336173, #336451) Unless this is resolved and we see some successful amd64 installs, it won't be in the beta. This was resolved, only to hit the next problem with amd64: The amd64 archive signing key is not trusted by apt. So currently testing amd64 installs only work from the netinst CD, all the other install methods, which use apt authentication, are broken. This is fixed in apt 0.6.42.2, but it won't reach testing in a while due to annoying gcc-4.0 dependencies needing to reach testing first. amd64 has also not built the most recent version of the debian-installer package, and has been marked as building for over a day at http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=packages=debian-installerarches= Additionally, it seems that the last debian-installer build to be built and installed into the amd64 archive was rc3, in May. See http://amd64.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/ So I'm not even sure if version 20051026 will get properly installed even if it does get built for amd64. At this point I'm not sure what to do about amd64 and the beta. I would rather not wait for a possibly indefinite gcc-4.0 transition to get the new apt in. Only supporting the amd64 netinst could work, so could doing some magic to get an upated apt into testing. m68k: I've become aware of another issue, which is that some m68k d-i udebs were miscompiled by a broken compiler there and don't work. I understand that smarenka has been working on this, but I don't know the currently status of it (beyond what's documented at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstallerM68kTodo) and whether m68k will be included in the beta is uncertian. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: beta status
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:08:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: amd64 has also not built the most recent version of the debian-installer package, and has been marked as building for over a day at http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=packages=debian-installerarches= Additionally, it seems that the last debian-installer build to be built and installed into the amd64 archive was rc3, in May. See http://amd64.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/ So I'm not even sure if version 20051026 will get properly installed even if it does get built for amd64. We had some problems (as noted above), and some others. The kernel udebs weren't in moved in testing until yesterday evening. This doesn't happen automaticly since it's a different source package for every arch, and we didn't notice they were out of date yet. Also, the buildd chroot also didn't have amd64 key in /etc/apt/trusted.gpg. Those issues should have been fixed, and 20051026 should get build soon. We also had a problem with a previous version, 20051009, that it ended up in reject with some strange error message (instead of in byhand). I hope we don't error anymore now. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Wed, Nov 2, 2005 at 14:08:07 +, Joey Hess wrote: alpha: - debian-installer FTBFS on alpha, but apparently only on the buildd. http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=debian-installerver=20051026arch=alphastamp=1130532682file=logas=raw We need this build if alpha will be in the beta. The other builds of 20051026 should be final for the beta, but still need to be installed and tested out. This is still a problem and I've seen no progress on this issue. Even someone doing a manual build and upload on alpha would probably be acceptable this point, (as long as you file a FTBFS bug too or something so we remember to investigate the buildd issue later..). I just tried building debian-installer on alpha, but I got the same problem as the buildd. The __libc_global_ctors symbol is undefined in tmp/cdrom/tree/lib/libc.so.6.1-so and tmp/cdrom/tree/lib/libc.so.6.1-so-stripped. However, I'm not an alpha expert, so I don't know how to debug this problem :/ Cheers, Julien Cristau -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
