On 7/5/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
The big advantage is binary compatibility with the rest of the
The current timeline is as follows:
- get security support fully working
- split the archive by architectures to reduce mirror bandwith
- add amd64 to sid/etch
- rebuild and upload all packages from an official buildd
BTW, is there an estimation when amd64 will be added to sid/etch?
[..]
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
Hi all,
though debian/amd64 sarge is meant to be 'stable' by now, I get a lot of
updates for my mail server today (dist-upgrade):
56 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
All 57 files are loaded from the sarge tree.
My last dist-upgrade was just last week, so I'm
You probably have testing or unstable packages installed, that got upgraded.
Check with apt-show-versions which packages you have installed, preferably
grep away the sarge ones ..
/n
Quoting Soenke von Stamm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
though debian/amd64 sarge is meant to be 'stable' by now,
I had the same problem, but taking modelines from Knoppix didn't help.
I compiled kernel with framebufer support for G550 and then force
X server to use it.
It seems to be fast enough, but not stable enough.
Marcin Golebski
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Hi,
Whenever I run apt-get upgrade I receive the message
'Another copy of the C library was found via /etc/ld.so.conf.
It is not safe to upgrade the C library in this situation;
please remove the directory from /etc/ld.so.conf and try again.
dpkg: error
processing
Hello,
I have a new Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 with amd64 3000+ and Kingston 2GB
RAM (dual channel)
It has to be a router for network with NAT (and htb) with brandwidth
about 8-10 Mbps.
I have my own kernel 2.6.12 with path-o-matic.
This router hangs after 1,5 hours, sometimes then after 2,5 hours,
Hmmm
~# apt-show-versions | grep /stable upgradeable | wc -l
55
I have now uncommented the sid line from sources.list and get the same result
when only grepping for upgradeable. I've also looked up some of the
packages on packages.debian.org and it seems all packages being suggested for
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 11:25:12PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Same here, has been running skype for about 6 months now. 32bit chroot,
works like a charm :-)
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
Skype when there is a huge SIP community, with soft phones,
Am Dienstag 05 Juli 2005 14:24 schrieb John Goerzen:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 11:25:12PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Same here, has been running skype for about 6 months now. 32bit chroot,
works like a charm :-)
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 11:01:52AM +0200, Soenke von Stamm wrote:
though debian/amd64 sarge is meant to be 'stable' by now, I get a lot of
updates for my mail server today (dist-upgrade):
56 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
All 57 files are loaded from the
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:24:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
Skype when there is a huge SIP community, with soft phones, hard phones,
and even the asterisk PBX in Linux?
Asterisk PBX is for running real phone systems (not
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:36:45AM +, DR GAVIN SEDDON wrote:
Whenever I run apt-get upgrade I receive the message
'Another copy of the C library was found via /etc/ld.so.conf.
It is not safe to upgrade the C library in this situation;
please remove the directory from /etc/ld.so.conf and
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:50:15PM +0200, Wojciech Babicz wrote:
I have a new Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 with amd64 3000+ and Kingston 2GB
RAM (dual channel)
It has to be a router for network with NAT (and htb) with brandwidth
about 8-10 Mbps.
I have my own kernel 2.6.12 with path-o-matic.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:26:02AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:24:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
Skype when there is a huge SIP community, with soft phones, hard phones,
and even the
Am Dienstag, 5. Juli 2005 15:35 schrieb John Goerzen:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:26:02AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:24:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
Skype when there is a huge SIP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:24:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
Skype when there is a huge SIP community, with soft phones, hard phones,
and even the asterisk PBX in Linux?
Jérôme Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[..]
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
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:26, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:24:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I know this is a bit OT, but can somebody explain to me the allure of
Skype when there is a huge SIP community, with soft phones, hard phones,
and even the asterisk PBX in
Thomas Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7/5/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
The big advantage is
On 7/5/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All current linux distributions are pure64.
That might be a matter of definition. From the user's point of view,
most commercial distributions are multiarch. After all, it is
difficult to sell a better distribution that is not even
A couple of weeks ago I double clicked my Synaptic desktop icon by mistake and
cancelled one instance. Since then, the command
gksu -u root /usr/sbin/synaptic
pops up the password prompt but then segfaults when return is pressed.
The same thing happens when I specify another of the sbin
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:44, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
All current linux distributions are pure64. They only differ slightly
in the amount of 32bit libs preinstalled (what debian has as
ia32-libs). Multiarch is something that goes way beyond what other
amd64 distributions have.
Multiarch
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best {every Linux machine already has a
compiler installed} and harmful at worst {Windows has wide-scale binary
compatibility -- and rampant malware}. All that matters is _source_
compatibility: that the same
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
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.
Maybe add wine to that list? (Disclaimer, haven't tried it lately)
I
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:49:08PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
I actually have a completely different question. I just re-read the
multi-arch doc and two things jump out: first, it looks extremely
non-controvertial, i.e. all parties should at least agree it's simple and
right - there's nothing
David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
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.
Maybe add wine to that list? (Disclaimer, haven't
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
It caused considerable controversy when it was first suggested, and
continued to do so for some time. I suspect that the only reason it
isn't causing much controversy at the moment is because very few
people are doing anything on it right now, so it's not
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:12:13PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
It caused considerable controversy when it was first suggested, and
continued to do so for some time. I suspect that the only reason it
isn't causing much controversy at the moment is because
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem?
See below...
Actually, I don't see where you've said what was objectionable about
multiarch.
Well, let's say you want to install a 32-bit xine. That's written
in C, so you have to
On 10341 March 1977, Soenke von Stamm wrote:
though debian/amd64 sarge is meant to be 'stable' by now, I get a lot of
updates for my mail server today (dist-upgrade):
Then you either had used a broken mirror which hasnt updated for some
time and now does again, or you are using
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:46:44PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem?
See below...
Actually, I don't see where you've said what was objectionable about
multiarch.
The whole set of
Hello,
Loading the rtc module fixed the issue.
grep -i rtc /boot/config-`uname -r` should show either
CONFIG_RTC=y
or
CONFIG_RTC=m
uuups. with this server hangs as usual after 8 hours :-/
any other ideas please
Wojciech Babicz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
The whole set of problems with the package management.
I don't understand. As far as I could see the problem you raised was what
a (finished) multiarch solves.
As I think I said in my mail, I don't know enough about the
library-building side of it
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:04:56PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
I don't understand. As far as I could see the problem you raised was what
a (finished) multiarch solves.
Multiarch was never finished as far as I know.
I keep saying it. There's a symlink. It's backwards-compatible! There is
no
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:46:44PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I don't expect that to work. It's obvious that if
you just made the directory structure switch you still have a long way to
go before you can install two different glibc
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 19:46, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem?
See below...
Actually, I don't see where you've said what was objectionable about
multiarch.
Well, let's say you want to install
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:04:56PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
I don't understand. As far as I could see the problem you raised was what
a (finished) multiarch solves.
Multiarch was never finished as far as I know.
I'm just trying to understand what
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Paul Brook wrote:
Until you have a coherent and generally acceptable plan for how to handle the
hard bits is there any point doing anything (other than as proof-of-concept)?
If you start migrating things before the long-term strategy has been agreed
you risk having to do
On 7/5/05, David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best {every Linux machine already
has a
compiler installed} and harmful at worst {Windows has wide-scale binary
compatibility -- and rampant malware}.
That
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:21:41PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
I'm just trying to understand what people's objections to multiarch are. I
didn't understand what Hugo said in answer to that. I meant that it
sounded like his answers (the problems he brought up) were things that
multiarch would
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:04:56PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
What's the problem? Yes, it will take work to _finish_, but why haven't we
even _started_?
Many packages/programs have hardcoded paths in them which will look in
/usr/lib and not in
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Thomas Steffen wrote:
As programmer I have to say that it should be, if you apply the due
care. However, it will never really work unless you actually test and
debug it. BTW, gcc/gdb does not properly support 64bit on SPARC, just
as a side note on magically portable.
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:21:41PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
I'm just trying to understand what people's objections to multiarch are. I
didn't understand what Hugo said in answer to that. I meant that it
sounded like his answers (the problems
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:25:39PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Pfft, give me a break. Guess we'll never move anything ever again.
That's just not how it works.
No I am sure we will, we just won't claim it is a trivial change.A
Starting to make a pile of symlinks without a plan certainly
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
The main objection is to change locations of files in a way that is
incompatible with existing software on linux.
But it is not incompatible unless you remove the links - and then you are
no longer following the proposal.
Would they not work
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Of course there is also the issue of how to deal with calling the 32 or
64bit version of program x if you have both versions installed. Perhaps
a helper tool to say run64bit version of x would deal with that, and
your idea of having symlinks in
* David Wood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Would they not work properly with the symlink in place?
is /usr/lib/i386-linux a symlink back to /usr/lib or what? /usr/lib
As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
No I am sure we will, we just won't claim it is a trivial change.A
It looks trivial to make the new directories and links and _start_.
No such claims about the rest. :)
Starting to make a pile of symlinks without a plan certainly doesn't
seem
On 7/5/05, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Many packages/programs have hardcoded paths in them which will look in
/usr/lib and not in your new directory.
Then they're busted and need to be fixed.
I guess you first have to explain how it
On 7/5/05, David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It took a startlingly small amount of effort in the kernel.
Not sure about small, but it works very well. Yes, if only userspace
was just as easy...
If we were starting from a blank slate, we can have the rest
with a tiny change in our naming
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:40:17PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
The main objection is to change locations of files in a way that is
incompatible with existing software on linux.
But it is not incompatible unless you remove the links - and then you
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:47 PM
To: Lennart Sorensen
Cc: David Wood; Hugo Mills; Goswin von Brederlow;
debian-amd64@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
* Lennart Sorensen
Thomas Steffen wrote:
Multiarch is something that goes way beyond what other
amd64 distributions have.
Maybe, but the RedHat package management does support two different
architectures, and it does it now.
Technically that is biarch. That is different than multiarch.
Red Hat has
* Latchezar Dimitrov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What's the reason for having both versions of a given app installed?
I'm pretty sure it was decided that was a bad idea and that
there wasn't any good use case for it and so we weren't going
to try and support it.
It just doesn't make
Adam Stiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:44, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
All current linux distributions are pure64. They only differ slightly
in the amount of 32bit libs preinstalled (what debian has as
ia32-libs). Multiarch is something that goes way beyond what
[..]
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
Gnu-Raiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree, if source software is unable to be compiled with 64
bit support then I would suggest that the developer needs to
get with it. Just look at the hardware that is in the
channel, most 32 bit cpu's are getting phased out, yes you
can still get them but
Thomas Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7/5/05, David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best {every Linux machine already
has a
compiler installed} and harmful at worst {Windows has wide-scale binary
Thomas Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The initiative has been taken by other distributions, and I don't see
a viable alternative to follow their approach. That means /usr/lib for
32bit libs and /usr/lib64 for the 64bit libs. Yes, it is ugly, but it
is close to inevitable.
It is already
* J?r?me Warnier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[..]
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?
It's basically biarch... I've got a couple Solaris boxes and I havn't
seen much
Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 19:46, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem?
See below...
Actually, I don't see where you've said what was objectionable about
multiarch.
Thomas Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7/5/05, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Many packages/programs have hardcoded paths in them which will look in
/usr/lib and not in your new directory.
Then they're busted and need to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
Thomas Steffen wrote:
Multiarch is something that goes way beyond what other
amd64 distributions have.
Maybe, but the RedHat package management does support two different
architectures, and it does it now.
Technically that is biarch. That is
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
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.
Maybe add wine to that list?
Hugo Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:49:08PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
Am I a bonehead or is it just a matter of moving some directories and
symlinks around in etch and then the super-gradual process (many many
years if you want) of migrating things from using the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:04:56PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
I don't understand. As far as I could see the problem you raised was what
a (finished) multiarch solves.
Multiarch was never finished as far as I know.
I keep saying it. There's a
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Thomas Steffen wrote:
The initiative has been taken by other distributions, and I don't see
a viable alternative to follow their approach. That means /usr/lib for
32bit libs and /usr/lib64 for the 64bit libs. Yes, it is ugly, but it
is close to inevitable.
1) We are not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:25:39PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Pfft, give me a break. Guess we'll never move anything ever again.
That's just not how it works.
No I am sure we will, we just won't claim it is a trivial change.A
Starting to make
Do you really do dfs any time you want to do anything on your computer?
Thanks,
Latchezar
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 7:54 PM
To: Latchezar Dimitrov
Cc: Lennart Sorensen; David Wood; Hugo Mills; Goswin von
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
There are not going to be any symlinks at all. There is no need
So, the posted documents are not correct on this (basic, major) point?
And why not have them? Obviously there is a need - to ease migration...
If I may venture a little further, the idea
* Latchezar Dimitrov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Do you really do dfs any time you want to do anything on your computer?
Yeah, that's *exactly* the same thing as daring to use apt-get...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:36 -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best {every Linux machine already
has a
compiler installed} and harmful at worst {Windows has wide-scale binary
compatibility -- and rampant malware}.
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Thomas Steffen wrote:
The initiative has been taken by other distributions, and I don't see
a viable alternative to follow their approach. That means /usr/lib for
32bit libs and /usr/lib64 for the 64bit libs. Yes, it is ugly, but it
Goswin von Brederlow kiedys napisal:
Marcin D?bicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just installed initng and I have reported something I think strange.
I can chroot (as usual using dchroot) but after:
xhost +localhost
and dchroot -d firefox I can see:
(firefox-bin:6923): Gtk-WARNING **:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:36 -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best {every Linux machine already
has a
compiler installed} and harmful at worst {Windows has wide-scale binary
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
There are not going to be any symlinks at all. There is no need
So, the posted documents are not correct on this (basic, major) point?
The only case symlinks are needed is binaries with rpath. Death to
binaries
Sven Krahn wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
My FX5200 on an Athlon XP 2800+ machine gets 610fps on default glxgears.
An FX5200 is no speedy card at all.
Does anybody (Len?) have an idea what the fps rate for FX 5700LE (with
an AMD64 3200+) should be? Mine is at roughly 1450fps
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 03:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:36 -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
[snip]
2) We believe that C/C++ is usually magically portable across hardware
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bob Proulx writes:
Red Hat has implemented special case biarch support. Debian has not
implemented either but the goal is to implement multiarch.
So under red hat you can actualy do: [whatever dpkg's -i is for rpm]
rpm -i libfoo_i386.rpm
rpm -i
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Thomas Steffen writes:
That is the theory, and I do believe in theory... until something more
practical comes along. I use Openoffice, Acrobat Reader, Partimage,
Mplayer, a bit of Wine, Oracle and sometimes Matlab for Linux. That
makes seven applications that
82 matches
Mail list logo
