Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
> > But now that I am looking at the package in more detail I am not
> > convinced that this problem is the same as the file skew problem. The
> > diff.gz does patch both the pinfo.info and pinfo.texi files. A time
> > skew coul
Hallo Harry,
El lun, 09-05-2005 a las 06:28 +0200, Harald Dunkel escribiÃ:
> I purged and reinstalled ia32-libs and lib32gcc1 (no need for
> the *-dev package), but there is no symbolic link:
> Setting up lib32gcc1 (4.0.0-1) ...
> Setting up ia32-libs (1.3.0.0.1.gcc4) ...
If I recall correctly,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Please make sure you have:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% ls -lhd /usr/lib32
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 2005-05-08 20:01 /usr/lib32 ->
> /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/
>
> Anything else means you have to purge ia32-libs, ia32-libs-dev and
> lib32gcc1 and reinstall them. It s
Laurent Bonnaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Which version of ia32-libs-dev was installed during the build?
>
> The latest version available in sid:
>
> ii ia32-libs-dev 1.4 ia32 development libraries
> and headers for use on ia32/ia6
Please make sure you have:
[EMA
> Which version of ia32-libs-dev was installed during the build?
The latest version available in sid:
ii ia32-libs-dev 1.4 ia32 development libraries and
headers for use on ia32/ia6
--
Laurent Bonnaud.
http://www.lis.inpg.fr/pages_perso/bonnaud/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
> bug reports for unsupported architectures aren't RC. anyway, the libc
> cannot be found. Please could you check, if applying the following
> patch succeeds in finding the 32bit libc?
Here is what I did:
edit ./src/gcc/config/i386/t-linux64
$ fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -b
Unfortunately my edits
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
> While walking through my list of things needed for amd64 I found that
> 'pinfo' still is not fixed. The 'pinfo' package is not installable on
> amd64 at this time.
>
> Previous discussion of this problem is here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/
While walking through my list of things needed for amd64 I found that
'pinfo' still is not fixed. The 'pinfo' package is not installable on
amd64 at this time.
Previous discussion of this problem is here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/01/msg00155.html
It was determined at the time
On 5/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I currently have a (nearly) fully-functional pure64 install on the Asus
> K8N-E Deluxe motherboard. It uses the following kernel drivers in 2.6.8:
> ATA: "AMD and nVidia IDE support" (AMD74xx)
> ATA RAID: none
> Serial ATA: sata_nv (primary)
On Sunday 08 May 2005 03:29 pm, mtms wrote:
> On 8 May 2005, 14:42, Damon Chesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sources:
> >
> > deb http://bytekeeper.as28747.net/debian-amd64/debian/ sarge main
> > contrib deb
> > http://bytekeeper.as28747.net/debian-amd64-alioth-old/debian-pure64/
> > sarge non
Kurt Roeckx kiedys napisal:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:02:41PM -0700, Attila Kocsis wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Does anybody know if any 64-bit Octave version exist?
>> Thx
>
> Yes, it's avaiable. The source package, and the real binary
> pacakges are called octave2.1.
>
> However, I can't tell if the p
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:02:41PM -0700, Attila Kocsis wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anybody know if any 64-bit Octave version exist?
> Thx
Yes, it's avaiable. The source package, and the real binary
pacakges are called octave2.1.
However, I can't tell if the package works perfectly in 64 bit
mode or not
Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Friday 06 May 2005 6:22am, Alexander Fieroch wrote:
>
>>(II) LoadModule: "v4l2"
>>(WW) Warning, couldn't open module v4l2
>>(II) UnloadModule: "v4l2"
>>(EE) Failed to load module "v4l2" (module does not exist, 0)
>
> I'm guessing this is for video for linux (v4l), right?
Hi,
Does anybody know if any 64-bit Octave version exist?
Thx
__
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On 8 May 2005, 14:42, Damon Chesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sources:
>
> deb http://bytekeeper.as28747.net/debian-amd64/debian/ sarge main contrib
> deb http://bytekeeper.as28747.net/debian-amd64-alioth-old/debian-pure64/
> sarge non-free
lsb-release package is only in Sid, not (yet?) in
Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other
>> > ar
I currently have a (nearly) fully-functional pure64 install on the Asus
K8N-E Deluxe motherboard. It uses the following kernel drivers in 2.6.8:
ATA: "AMD and nVidia IDE support" (AMD74xx)
ATA RAID: none
Serial ATA: sata_nv (primary), sata_sil (secondary)
SCSI: none
Network: forcedeth
Sound: snd-
On Sunday 08 May 2005 01:44 pm, James Curbo wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 13:03 -0500, Damon Chesser wrote:
> > [snip]
snip
>
> You're using the old archive that I doubt is being updated anymore.
> Pick a mirror from http://amd64.debian.net/README.mirrors.html and
> change your sources.list. For
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 13:03 -0500, Damon Chesser wrote:
> [snip]
> dam64:/home/damon# apt-cache showpkg lsb-release
> Package: lsb-release
> Versions:
>
> Reverse Depends:
> lsb-core,lsb-release
> ia32-libs,lsb-release
> Dependencies:
> Provides:
> Reverse Provides:
>
> sources.list
> deb ht
On Sunday 08 May 2005 10:24 am, you wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 09:24 -0500, Damon Chesser wrote:
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > ia32-libs: Depends: lsb-release but it is not installable
> > E: Broken packages
> >
> > Package lsb-release is not available, but is referr
Joerg Jaspert wrote on 07/05/2005 18:17:
> As there are some questions about the mirror stuff I just put a small
> site together explaining the most important things to know.
>
> Look at it here: http://amd64.debian.net/~joerg/mirror.html
>
> Yes, we appreciate any new mirrors, so just mail me if
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
> > other
> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why.
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 09:24 -0500, Damon Chesser wrote:
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> ia32-libs: Depends: lsb-release but it is not installable
> E: Broken packages
>
> Package lsb-release is not available, but is referred to by another
> package.
> This may mean that the
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other
>> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
>> > explanation I am
>> > forced to
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
ia32-libs: Depends: lsb-release but it is not installable
E: Broken packages
Package lsb-release is not available, but is referred to by another
package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from anot
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other
> arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation
> I am
> forced to agree with Ed - the
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> >> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> >> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> >> aren't Debian).
> > Wait a second, if you *are
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 11:13:18AM +0200, Niklas Ögren wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The packages
> libkrb-1-kerberos4kth
> libroken16-kerberos4kth
>
> seems to be gone from amd64 testing, but the mainline debian got them
> there..
Afaik, the source package krb4 was never part of testing because
it needed
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
>provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the internal
>politics of Debian.
>
No. Many (most?) non-free packages have a statement in their license
agreement that you are forbidden
Who needs nvidia-glx or other non-free packages can (still) find them
adding these lines to sources.list:
### non-free
deb http://bytekeeper.as28747.net/debian-amd64-alioth-old/pure64/ sarge non-free
deb http://bytekeeper.as28747.net/debian-amd64-alioth-old/pure64/ sid non-free
Hope it helps,
--
Hi!
The packages
libkrb-1-kerberos4kth
libroken16-kerberos4kth
seems to be gone from amd64 testing, but the mainline debian got them
there..
Version 1.2.2-11.2 do exists now in unstable though..
/n
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>> aren't Debian).
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-f
Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
>
>
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not har
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
En/La Juergen Kreileder ha escrit, a 08/05/05 08:45:
| Javier Kohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|
|>El dom, 08-05-2005 a las 06:52 +0200, Jonathan Kaye escribió:
|>
|>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4521013.stm
|>>1. Does anyone se
On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi
>
> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
35 matches
Mail list logo
