On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 12:51:40 +0300, Jussi Hakala wrote:
Guillem Jover wrote:
Sure, no problem with that, it's always good to have bugs on file, but
the only problem here is trying to overload the meaning of armel for a
different architecture.
I understand. But surely we can choose a
Guillem Jover wrote:
Sure, no problem with that, it's always good to have bugs on file, but
the only problem here is trying to overload the meaning of armel for a
different architecture.
I understand. But surely we can choose a different name (uarmel?) and
after we've agreed with the arch
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13:26 +0200, Jussi Hakala wrote:
Guillem Jover wrote:
Just to clarify, the version in etch is not going to be updated for
this anyway, that's Debian release policy.
Didn't expect it would.
I issued a bug because I thought it would be nice to have a record of
Guillem Jover wrote:
Just to clarify, the version in etch is not going to be updated for
this anyway, that's Debian release policy.
Didn't expect it would.
I issued a bug because I thought it would be nice to have a record of
etch dpkg-architecture breaking when the toolchain advertises
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 15:46:01 +0200, Jussi Hakala wrote:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.13.25
Etch's dpkg does not recognize arm-none-linux-uclibcgnueabi as a valid
architecture.
Just to clarify, the version in etch is not going to be updated for
this anyway, that's Debian release policy.
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.13.25
Etch's dpkg does not recognize arm-none-linux-uclibcgnueabi as a valid
architecture. Don't know if this architecture string is exactly a proper
one to begin with, but at compile time it seemed like the most
reasonable one from all the options...
Anyway, we
6 matches
Mail list logo
