Processed: Reassigning my bugs
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: submitter 237423 ! Bug#237423: syslinux: ppmtolss16 not recognizing a valid .pnm file Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 240314 ! Bug#240314: rxvt displaying only 8 colors Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 240824 ! Bug#240824: linuxlogo: Linuxlogo not displaying other type of logos Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 261735 ! Bug#261735: eeyes: Segmentation fault on corrupetd gif Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 264285 ! Bug#264285: /bin/ksh: ksh not interpreting PS1 variable Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 272274 ! Bug#272274: debbugs: RFC 2047 subject lines should be decoded in web interface Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 272798 ! Bug#272798: apt should realize when an installed package does have fewer dependencies than the one in the archive Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 272800 ! Bug#272800: libdevmapper1.00: apt-get keeps saying that it must be installed Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 281415 ! Bug#281415: antiword: New version available Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 283727 ! Bug#283727: inkscape: Not opening the image correctly Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 298248 ! Bug#298248: /usr/bin/dh_make: Change information when creating the package Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 301674 ! Bug#301674: ITP: biobar -- A toolbar for browsing biological data and databases [med-tools] Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 305786 ! Bug#305786: RFP: pivot -- tool, written in PHP, to create weblogs and other dynamic websites Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 306214 ! Bug#306214: cdimage.debian.org: There should be MD5 files to check the ISOs Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 317243 ! Bug#317243: amsn: Amsn plugins Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 319574 ! Bug#319574: Minor cosmetic fix to wdm manual Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 319575 ! Bug#319575: aptitude: Must show one package per line, when sowing what a virtual package provides Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 319945 ! Bug#319945: ITP: biosquid -- library and utilities for biological sequence analysis [med-bio] Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 322117 ! Bug#322117: configure-debian: Must not reconfigure a package if it's the only one in the category Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 322284 ! Bug#322284: x11-common: Outdated Xsession.options(5) man page and use-session-dbus option Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 323445 ! Bug#323445: xlockmore: New upstream version available Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. submitter 325662 ! Bug#325662: gtetrinet: Minor corrections to man page Changed Bug submitter from Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED]. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.
Hello, In an attempt to look about how to best bring biarch 64bit support to the powerpc architecture, and after Andreas Jochens asked about powerpc 64bit xlibs support for some apps he is using and which needs 64 bit support, i am wondering what the opinion of the X strike force team is about adding a couple of lib...64... versions of the X librariesfor the etch timeframe. They would need to be rebuilt with the -m64 flag, but shouldotherwise just work, thanks to the great work of our toolchain folk. So, would the above be excluded totally, do you have another better solution (like using a design with a 64bit backend and a 32bit X frontend, not sure how this would be efficiency-wise, but it would probably need a lot of work for the applications to be rewritten in this way). x apparently already builds just fine in 64bit mode, or at least Andreas Jochens has done it, and if multi-arch ever becomes really usable, then another approach would be needed, in the meantime, the biarch is support we will have for etch. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-ppc64-devel] x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.
On 05-Sep-23 10:17, Sven Luther wrote: x apparently already builds just fine in 64bit mode, or at least Andreas Jochens has done it, and if multi-arch ever becomes really usable, then another approach would be needed, in the meantime, the biarch is support we will have for etch. 'xorg-x11' indeed builds fine on the native 64-bit ppc64 port when the patch from BTS #319178 is applied. That patch just adds minimal support to make the package build on the ppc64 architecture: * Add ppc64 to 'Architecture:' fields in debian/control * Add ppc64 handling to debian/xserver-xorg.config.in * Add the following new files: debian/scripts/vars.ppc64 debian/MANIFEST.ppc64.in debian/libxvmc-dev.install.ppc64 debian/libxvmc1-dbg.install.ppc64 debian/libxvmc1.install.ppc64 debian/xlibmesa-dri-dbg.install.ppc64 debian/xlibmesa-dri.install.ppc64 debian/xserver-xorg.config.in debian/xserver-xorg.docs.ppc64 debian/xserver-xorg.install.ppc64 Note that this patch has nothing to do with the powerpc/ppc64 biarch 'lib64...' approach that Sven has in mind. I have no idea if a biarch approach would work for the 'xorg-x11' package. Even if it is possible, I fear that it would complicate the packaging of 'xorg-x11'. It would certainly be nice to have 64-bit versions of the X libraries available on powerpc (and also on i386). However, IMHO this problem should be solved by implementing 'multiarch', i.e. by allowing the installation of packages that have been built on a different architecture. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-ppc64-devel] x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: On 05-Sep-23 10:17, Sven Luther wrote: x apparently already builds just fine in 64bit mode, or at least Andreas Jochens has done it, and if multi-arch ever becomes really usable, then another approach would be needed, in the meantime, the biarch is support we will have for etch. 'xorg-x11' indeed builds fine on the native 64-bit ppc64 port when the patch from BTS #319178 is applied. That patch just adds minimal support to make the package build on the ppc64 architecture: Notice in any case that this patch is probably not going to be used in any case, since we will either go biarch for etch, or real multi-arch, which hasn't been decided yet, and that in any case the 64bit name will be powerpc64, not ppc64. More to this in the coming days. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#329788: libxrender-dev: 1:0.9.0+CVS20050919-1
Package: libxrender-dev Version: 1:0.9.0-2 Severity: important While trying to build pygtk2.8 on a experimental chroot I found it trying to link to /usr/local/lib/libXrender.so; I believe this is caused by libXrender.la giving wrong directions: $ grep ^libdir /usr/lib/libXrender.la libdir='/usr/local/lib' I removed the auto-generated information because it was generated from my unstable system; The chroot is basically an up-to-date experimental one. Thanks, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-ppc64-devel] x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:06:22PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: On 05-Sep-23 13:16, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: On 05-Sep-23 10:17, Sven Luther wrote: x apparently already builds just fine in 64bit mode, or at least Andreas Jochens has done it, and if multi-arch ever becomes really usable, then another approach would be needed, in the meantime, the biarch is support we will have for etch. 'xorg-x11' indeed builds fine on the native 64-bit ppc64 port when the patch from BTS #319178 is applied. That patch just adds minimal support to make the package build on the ppc64 architecture: Notice in any case that this patch is probably not going to be used in any case, since we will either go biarch for etch, or real multi-arch, which hasn't been decided yet, and that in any case the 64bit name will be powerpc64, not ppc64. Please do not start the naming debate for the ppc64 port again. This has been discussed and decided months ago. Decided ? i don't think i was part of this discussion, and with the ppc/ppc64 kernel upstream thingy changing to a single powerpc one, things did indeed change. The Debian packaging name is 'ppc64' which conforms to the LSB. This name is already used by dpkg, apt and many other packages. Well, we will see. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-ppc64-devel] x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.
On 05-Sep-23 13:16, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: On 05-Sep-23 10:17, Sven Luther wrote: x apparently already builds just fine in 64bit mode, or at least Andreas Jochens has done it, and if multi-arch ever becomes really usable, then another approach would be needed, in the meantime, the biarch is support we will have for etch. 'xorg-x11' indeed builds fine on the native 64-bit ppc64 port when the patch from BTS #319178 is applied. That patch just adds minimal support to make the package build on the ppc64 architecture: Notice in any case that this patch is probably not going to be used in any case, since we will either go biarch for etch, or real multi-arch, which hasn't been decided yet, and that in any case the 64bit name will be powerpc64, not ppc64. Please do not start the naming debate for the ppc64 port again. This has been discussed and decided months ago. The Debian packaging name is 'ppc64' which conforms to the LSB. This name is already used by dpkg, apt and many other packages. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-ppc64-devel] x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.
On 05-Sep-23 14:03, Sven Luther wrote: Andreas Jochens wrote: Please do not start the naming debate for the ppc64 port again. This has been discussed and decided months ago. Decided ? i don't think i was part of this discussion, and with the ppc/ppc64 kernel upstream thingy changing to a single powerpc one, things did indeed change. Sven, you wrote the following in that discussing on debian-devel (see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg01828.html). Sven Luther wrote: Notice that ppc64 is what is widely known in the outside world on anyone working with 64bit powerpc, that both the kernel and the toolchain use it, that all the documentation referent to it uses ppc64 and that the other distributions doin 64bit powerpc (gento, suze and redhat) use it too, as well as all cross toolchain out there. Will we want to do something different as pure dogma, despite the cost involved ? The only voice against 'ppc64' in that discussion was from the dpkg maintainer Scott James Remnant. And yes, it was decided to use the name 'ppc64'. Following that decision, this name was used by 'dpkg', 'apt', 'gcc-4.0' and a lot of other packages. Sven, please do not work against the ppc64 port by confusing people. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#301605: XFree86 unable to start
Hi there where you able to sove this problem as I have the same problem? Kind regards Rick
