On 04-Oct-30 16:55, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 04:12:01PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > Anyway, if you intend to run binaries on different distributions,
> > you should create binaries which conform to the LSB standard and you
> > should install the LSB compatibility packa
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 04:12:01PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > Does your binaries run on other x86-64 distributions without any compat
> > symlinks ? I think this is an absolute requirement for pure64.
>
> The binaries will run on all distributions which have
> the interpreter accessible as
On 04-Oct-30 15:36, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:18:40AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > I patched the gcc-3.4 package in the amd64/gcc-3.4 archive to get that
> > result. For the patch I used please look at BTS #277852. I recompiled
> > the complete amd64/gcc-3.4 archive wi
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:18:40AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 04-Oct-24 23:24, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:18:15PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch is harmless with respect to any LSB requirement.
> > > The name of the dynamic loader, which is code
On 04-Oct-24 23:24, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:18:15PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > This patch is harmless with respect to any LSB requirement.
> > The name of the dynamic loader, which is coded into every binary
> > can only be changed in the gcc package. This patch
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:18:15PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> This patch is harmless with respect to any LSB requirement.
> The name of the dynamic loader, which is coded into every binary
> can only be changed in the gcc package. This patch does not change
> that.
I don't know what you a
6 matches
Mail list logo
