On 02/03/14 06:56, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On Mar 2, 2014, at 4:52 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Hostile binary takeover is not allowed - that is two separate source
packages should not build the same binary package names, even if on
different architectures.
Ok, sounds reasonable when
On 28/02/14 17:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 02/28/2014 04:13 PM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is
still stuck in incoming?
I suggest asking the FTP masters to mark the package as REJECT if you
want to change
On 28/02/14 17:58, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
However, I will wait for a resolution from ftp-master before
resuming my work on the package, because there is the possibility
of ftp-master not allowing the upload and I don't like to waste my
time.
Just because your package is rejected
On 07/03/13 19:51, Jeff Epler wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:49:55PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
Valgrind does appear to be aware of sysarch, implementing
sysarch(AMD64_SET_FSBASE) in
coregrind/m_syswrap/syswrap-amd64-freebsd.c.
Aha. eglibc is testing that the syscall succeeds, which is
Hi!
From some time ago there is available a port of Valgrind to FreeBSD [1]
I tried to compile it on Debian/kFreeBSD, and after some patching
I was able to compile it on kfreebsd-amd64 sid (didn't tested i386).
Here are some quick instructions to replicate what I did
(valgrind_kfreebsd.patch is
On 05/03/13 20:40, Petr Salinger wrote:
The error message does not come from valgrind, but from the libc.
According to [0], FreeBSD fully supports TLS only on i386 and ia64
which kinda
explains why your amd64 build does not run (that page looks old
though). Try
disabling TLS explicitly on
On 01/03/13 12:22, Martin wrote:
Kool, how do u guys know where to look for this information lol. I spend
hrs looking and never find a thing.
I would love to see the GNU/NetBSD project rebooted at some stage but under
GNU/kNetBSD. NetBSD has some really good tools that didn't exist in 2002
On 01/03/13 12:22, Martin wrote:
I am talking about the RUMP anykernel if any of you know about it?? It
basically allows you to run the kernel in any configuration. Its basically
the IPC and hyper visor in one. So what i mean is RUMP allows one to run
kernelspace tools in userspace, meaning
On 26/02/13 23:08, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 26/02/13 08:26, Martin wrote:
I understand that the Debian GNU Netbsd project is inactive and has been
since 2002, but is the source of what was done still available?
It would be nice to be able to dig this up, but
On 21/02/13 00:14, Michael Stone wrote:
Short version:
My inclination is to simply better document that hostid is an interface
without clear semantics which exists for compatability with legacy
systems and should not be used in new applications.
Longer version:
What is the reason for
On 17/02/13 15:19, Arno Töll wrote:
There is also a question about /etc/hostid handling, do you know how
is it handled in kBSD? Existing packaging work of Fedora ZoL makes
hostid static, but I doubt it's desired.
We do not define any hostid, in fact (and Debian/Linux neither ships
On 20/02/13 02:48, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
So this invalidates the original purpose of gethostid(). Which was meant
to be a value unique for each host, has turned into a value that is
shared by most of the hosts.
http://bugs.debian.org/595790
Which then invalidates the original
12 matches
Mail list logo
