On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:07:30PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Chris Tillman wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:54:37AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Chris Tillman wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Recipe:
> > > > > - install the build-dependancies
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:54:37AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Chris Tillman wrote:
>
> > > Recipe:
> > > - install the build-dependancies on the host system
> > > I don't know what they are, don't know how to find out so we'll see what
> > > breaks
> >
> > The buil
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:03:57AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2003, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>
> > Am Die, 2003-07-01 um 14.40 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > I would need to build _everything_, unless there are binaries some place
> > > for oldworld powermacs. The build docum
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:33:13PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Am Die, 2003-07-01 um 14.40 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > I would need to build _everything_, unless there are binaries some place
> > for oldworld powermacs. The build document is a little terse, and I
> > don't see a list of
On 1 Jul 2003, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Am Die, 2003-07-01 um 14.40 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > I would need to build _everything_, unless there are binaries some place
> > for oldworld powermacs. The build document is a little terse, and I
> > don't see a list of udebs at all.
> No you don
Am Die, 2003-07-01 um 14.40 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I would need to build _everything_, unless there are binaries some place
> for oldworld powermacs. The build document is a little terse, and I
> don't see a list of udebs at all.
No you don't have to do that. Read build/README. Basically you
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Yes. And when you do, you have to know what you are doing. I think, D-I
> will be the perfect toy for you. Use it, and stop bitching about
> boot-floppies.
I've updated my CVS of it, read the recommended docs and some not
recommended.
I would need to
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Sat, Jun 28 2003, 11:16:30AM]:
>
> > The "arch maintainer" for what? My problem is with b-f, according to
> > those documents you mention, this list is the right place.
>
> For the problem with your powerpc kernel packag
#include
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Sat, Jun 28 2003, 11:16:30AM]:
> The "arch maintainer" for what? My problem is with b-f, according to
> those documents you mention, this list is the right place.
For the problem with your powerpc kernel package which was your initial
problem.
> > > > whereever it
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Thu, Jun 26 2003, 11:11:39AM]:
>
> > > > I have tried the testing version. It fails too:
> > > > 1393+1 records out
> > >
> > > You did not understand the problem. It is not the version of BFs
> >
> > The problem, I tho
#include
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Thu, Jun 26 2003, 11:11:39AM]:
> > > I have tried the testing version. It fails too:
> > > 1393+1 records out
> >
> > You did not understand the problem. It is not the version of BFs
>
> The problem, I thought, is that the three versions of b-f I've used do
> not p
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Feel free to create a such thing, I won't accept it in the "stable"
> branch.
Here is a patch to allow user customising without changing any source
at all.
It doesn't address any other problems, it simply eliminates the need to
edit the config file it
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Wed, Jun 25 2003, 02:47:44PM]:
>
> > > > > Stable still has 3.0.22. Is there a reason 3.0.23 never moved to
> > > > > stable, Eduard?
> > >
> > > See above. Woody has been moved to stable under our asses, and to this
> >
#include
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Wed, Jun 25 2003, 02:47:44PM]:
> > > > Stable still has 3.0.22. Is there a reason 3.0.23 never moved to
> > > > stable, Eduard?
> >
> > See above. Woody has been moved to stable under our asses, and to this
> > time there were an RC bug about potential security prob
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, Jun 23 2003, 07:19:54AM]:
>
> > /archive/debian/download/var/lib/apt/lists/debootstrap.invalid_dists_woody_main_binary-powerpc_Packages
> > E: Couldn't download pcmcia-modules-2.4.18-newpmac
> > E: ./kernel.sh abort
#include
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, Jun 23 2003, 07:19:54AM]:
> /archive/debian/download/var/lib/apt/lists/debootstrap.invalid_dists_woody_main_binary-powerpc_Packages
> E: Couldn't download pcmcia-modules-2.4.18-newpmac
> E: ./kernel.sh abort
> make[1]: *** [linuxnewpmac.bin] Error 1
> make[1]: L
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Chris Tillman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:55:48AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have done these things:
> > apt-get source boot-floppies
> > cd ..
> > vim config
> > # to change mirror, local directories., maybe one to two other things
> > # Having alread
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:55:48AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have done these things:
> apt-get source boot-floppies
> cd ..
> vim config
> # to change mirror, local directories., maybe one to two other things
> # Having alread had troubles like this, I left the kernel selections
> #
I have done these things:
apt-get source boot-floppies
cd ..
vim config
# to change mirror, local directories., maybe one to two other things
# Having alread had troubles like this, I left the kernel selections
# well alone.
make check # OK
time make release
It failed thus:
I: Validating
19 matches
Mail list logo
