On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:15:51AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> multiarch is not yet ready; you can't build it on the buildds, you can't
> depend
> on foreign architectures on the buildds. If you want to spend some time
> working
> on this, it would be appreciated, but until then I think it's
On 06.01.2017 15:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 08:48:06AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 05.12.2016 18:50, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> As we have been discussing it is still not clear to me if I should fix
>>> or remove the multilib packages since it is still not clear to me that
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 08:48:06AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 05.12.2016 18:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> > As we have been discussing it is still not clear to me if I should fix
> > or remove the multilib packages since it is still not clear to me that
> > there is a sensible use case for them.
On 05.12.2016 18:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:24:46PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 05.12.2016 18:14, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I am suggesting that since nothing except for the multlib D runtime
>>> packages needs a multilib zlib and there seems to be a very limited use
>
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:24:46PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 05.12.2016 18:14, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I am suggesting that since nothing except for the multlib D runtime
> > packages needs a multilib zlib and there seems to be a very limited use
> > case for them it seems better to just not
On 05.12.2016 18:14, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:40:29PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 05.12.2016 11:29, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
it's available in the GCC packages for a while now.
>
>>> Sure, but there's
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:40:29PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 05.12.2016 11:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> it's available in the GCC packages for a while now.
> > Sure, but there's a bunch more stuff needed.
> sorry, I don't
On 05.12.2016 11:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 30.11.2016 13:45, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> Well, there's a bunch of questions there - people seem generally
>>> negative on x32 and the use cases for multilib with tooling for early
>>> bo
ping?
On 30.11.2016 15:31, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 30.11.2016 13:45, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 28.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
Which apparently chan
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 30.11.2016 13:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Well, there's a bunch of questions there - people seem generally
> > negative on x32 and the use cases for multilib with tooling for early
> > boot and so on don't seem to apply in any case
On 30.11.2016 13:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 28.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>>> Which apparently changed at some point in the toolchain, probably quite
>>> s
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 28.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Which apparently changed at some point in the toolchain, probably quite
> > some time ago, but fortunately we'd actually
On 28.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 26.11.2016 20:35, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 03:56:21PM
On 28.11.2016 20:00, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Sami Liedes wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that Mark is saying that this is not even supposed to
>> work with lib32z1-dev installed, but rather you should have
>> zlib1g-dev:i386 installed (and not doing so is user erro
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Sami Liedes wrote:
> It seems to me that Mark is saying that this is not even supposed to
> work with lib32z1-dev installed, but rather you should have
> zlib1g-dev:i386 installed (and not doing so is user error).
Right, that's now the expected way for us
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 26.11.2016 20:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> On 26.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> This e
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Can you please provide a clear, from first steps description of what's
> > needed and why?
>
> again, here is the example which you removed:
>
[...]
>^
> compilation terminated.
>
> The example fails because the
On 26.11.2016 20:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 26.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>>> Please allow at least a little time for a response, I've no real idea
>>> wha
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 26.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please allow at least a little time for a response, I've no real idea
> > what you're even asking for here.
> well, I as
reopen 787956
thanks
On 26.11.2016 19:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> Control: severity -1 serious
>
> This appears to be some random bug that's a user error and should've
> been closed after the initial discussion with the submitter (
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 787956
Bug #787956 {Done: Mark Brown } [lib32z1-dev] lib32z1-dev:
Compiling anything that includes with -m32 fails
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #787956 to the same values
previously set
> thanks
Stopping p
21 matches
Mail list logo
