> > The interface works the same as fdisk
>
> Um, no. There is no interface. sfdisk is driven completely by a
> config file describing the desired partition table.
>
> Furthermore, it's already on your hard drive if you're running hamm.
> It's part of util-linux.
I was refering t
On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris says that all of the mailing lists are gatewayed one-way only,
> and there is no mention of the list address in the headers. Thus, he thinks
> that the people who are finding our list by mistake are doing it through
> some other means. Does this mean
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure if we should treat static libraries the same way, since
> some people might need the symbols for debugging. Could someone
> comment on that?
Static libraries should be stripped with --strip-debug. If you want
stuff with debug symbols p
Hi folks!
According to recent discussions here on debian-devel, some people still
fear that the "bo-unstable" directory (to be created in the next few days)
will produce more work for the maintainers and we should concentrate on
"hamm". However, the opposite is true: A lot of maintainers (and us
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> There is quite a lot of unstripped libraries/object files in /usr/lib, is
> this against policy?
Policy, section `3.3.2 Libraries' says that all shared libraries have to
be stripped (unless they are part of a debugging package).
I'm not sure if we sh
I need to connect a Linux box to an NT server over a dial-up line. The NT
box uses a "Remote Access Server". I remember seeing a discussion of this
recently, but can't find the reference in my mail archives. Can anyone
clue me in as to what package/howto I need to look at to deal with this?
TIA,
Here's one lurker sticking his head up for a second. I lurk so I get some
picture of what's happening on the hamm front, beyond what I get on
debian-user. I don't post because I don't develop (yet ;).
TL
On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: debian-devel@lists
Chris says that all of the mailing lists are gatewayed one-way only,
and there is no mention of the list address in the headers. Thus, he thinks
that the people who are finding our list by mistake are doing it through
some other means. Does this mean that they are finding it through our own
WWW arc
Goodness gracious. Debian-devel has >400 subscribers. Must be a lot of
lurkers.
Bruce
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
There's a box in the garage here that says "Mac IIx". I've been holding on
to it hoping that it might someday support the 68k port. Any chance of
that?
Bruce
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
My message was not meant to be "unfriendly". Mr. Thompson did not
understand that we are getting a lot of questions from windows users
who find this list in error, and since you did not mention Linux
or Debian, it's first necessary to determine if that's what you are
interested in. If so, there are
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure, no prob, IF I know what the differences are... :)
Assuming you have libc6-dev and libc5-altdev installed,
/usr/include/utmpbits.h has the new structure, and
/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/include/utmp.h has the old structure.
The new structure has many
On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does that mean there's a Mac kernel now?
there is a kernel for m68k Macs, but it supports very few models by now...
I only tested it with success on a Mac IIci.
The only corrently supported machines by now are LC,LC2,IIci,IIcx.
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS
Does that mean there's a Mac kernel now?
Bruce
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
reassign 13578 gzip
reassign 14612 ash
reassign 15005 ash
stop
Please, don't reassign packaging bugs to debmake, but open new bugs
instead. debstd is not a shared library and therefore fixing it will not
`magically' fix all packages using it in debian/rules.
I have taken over the maintenance of d
Hi,
To all who are interested, a new verion of kernel-package has
been uploaded to Master. This involves tweaks in the kernel sorce and
headers packages to accomodate the new way of doing things in libc6.
I have tested it with building header and source packages for
2.0.32, and
I apologize for the unfriendly message from one of our other developers
recently.
Yes, these pieces of hardware should work fine with Linux. Debian is
just a distribution of Linux, so it will be fine too. As far as
configuring, that is a more difficult question. The majority of that
is done whe
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 11:47:50AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5,
OK.
> > conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
> > hamm-libc6-dev,
Unnecessary.
> > provides (probably) libc5-dev
Definitely not! libc5-d
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:37:04AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
> > -altdev packages. It isn't that hard.
>
> Trust me, if I thought I was competant enough to do so, I would. However,
> I don't trust myself not to break such
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm. Hamm has
> > libc5-altdev instead. This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
> > into the altgcc/lib*-altdev mode, requiring the mass remo
Richard Braakman writes:
> James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> xemacs20-20.2-4 (Mixed dependencies; waiting for libcompface?)
> xemacs19-19.16-1 (Mixed dependencies; waiting for libcompface?)
libcompface has already been converted.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | St
I will be in Gothenburg from Monday the 15th to Monday the 22nd (this
month). It will probably be difficult to reach me during that time,
and I will not read the mailing lists at all.
I will not be able to make any package releases because I will leave
my PGP key behind. I maintain the packages
On 13 Dec 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> oh, yuck. You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
> the new structure.
Thing is, I _THINK_ I'm already using the new structure, but I don't know
for sure...
> I'm sure you can figure out a way to dynamically
> determine which type of structur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Lowe) wrote on 08.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > BTW I'd be interested to hear any justification of why <--- == DEL
>
> Well, from a sheer visual standpoint, seeing an arrow pointing to the
> left, like on the BS key (<--),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 13.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*
>
> oh, yuck. You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
> the new structure. I'm su
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander E. Apke) wrote on 08.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think there is another reason for choosing <--- == BS, for
> internationalization. I believe it requires <--- == BS, though I am not
> entirely sure. This may be the reason for the push for <--- == BS, eve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bridgett) wrote on 27.11.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There are alot of scripts which use unnecessary bashisms. Apart from complex
> scripts most of these can be easily changed to conform to the POSIX shell.
> This has the added advantage of meaning that those who want t
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> >
> > > This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
> > > that can be used with libc5-dev.
> >
> > Would it? What if they wou
On Dec 12, Turbo Fredriksson wrote
> On 12 Dec 1997, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> > Just use the libc functions setutent/getutent. They're available in
> > both libc5 and glibc2.
>
> Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*
[...]
> *sigh* What can a poor perl proggramme
On 12 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Douglas Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But consider the recent discussion of porting dpkg to other systems.
> > If you were using dpkg on Solaris or HP-UX or ... you may not be
> > able to count on cp understanding the -a flag.
>
> Fooblah. Debian i
On 12 Dec 1997, Sven Rudolph wrote:
> G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I am planning to package agrep, a grep-like tool that allows to
> >
> > We have it already. I think it comes with glimpse .
>
> So it should be split into an extra package ?
Yes, probably a good idea.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 12.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> > Format: 1.5
> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:21:58 +0100
> > Source: libtermreadkey-perl
> > Binary: libtermreadkey-perl
>
>
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-switch -fno-strength-reduce -malign-loops=2
> -malign-jumps=
> 2 -malign-functions=2 -Demacs -I../src -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I/usr/include/db
> -I/usr
> /X11R6/include /usr/src/xemacs-20.3/lib-src/wakeup.c -L/usr/X11R6/lib
> -ltermcap
David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
> -altdev packages. It isn't that hard.
That's really the only workable solution.
David, I do think you ought to add the Conflicts to older versions of
libc5 to libc6. This will prevent
G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The interface works the same as fdisk
Um, no. There is no interface. sfdisk is driven completely by a
config file describing the desired partition table.
Furthermore, it's already on your hard drive if you're running hamm.
It's part of util-li
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*
oh, yuck. You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
the new structure. I'm sure you can figure out a way to dynamically
determine which type of structure is bei
Package: general
Status: pending
Severity: normal
This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months). Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.
The history of this bug can be found at:
http://www.debian
Package: general
Status: pending
Severity: normal
This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months). Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.
The history of this bug can be found at:
http://www.debian
Package: general
Status: pending
Severity: normal
This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months). Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.
The history of this bug can be found at:
http://www.debian
Package: general
Status: pending
Severity: normal
This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months). Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.
The history of this bug can be found at:
http://www.debian
"Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
>
> > "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > > > libc6: Conflicts: (l
On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > > > (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell
"Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > > (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> > >with stock 1.3.
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:06:07AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > > Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> > > version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past the
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:06:07AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> > version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
> > packages always had to have the same v
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> >with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
> >
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:11:37AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo? Ie, the
> > bo-updates, bo-current or whatever director
On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> The problem is that maybe *you* know what packages those are, but most
> users expect to be able to upgrade without major system services
> breaking if dpkg/dselect doesn't indicate that there's a problem.
> Your approach would cause silent failures.
>
> Imag
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE
> > > NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO
> > > THROUGH H
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> > choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> > as a minor issue, I wou
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> Would it possible to make a (not altdev):
>
> debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/libc5-dev_5.4.33-7.deb
>
> that conflicts with libc6-dev? And would this solve everyones problem?
> I'm just wondering if the libc5 in this directory doesn
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
> > that can be used with libc5-dev.
>
> Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> version as the
On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> > development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev. Not
> > everyone is going that route yet.
>
> True, so they can stay with
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> For some reason, dselect just decided to remove a whole bunch of
> packages that I CERTAINLY DID NOT MARK FOR REMOVAL, like
> lynx, apache, mutt, gs-aladdin, and goodness knows what else
> since I hit ^C. The available packages list looks fine, so they
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>
> > Why can't we do the following:
> >
> > In both bo-updates and hamm:
> > libc5: No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course)
> > (solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily
I have a Quadra950 that I am thinking of coaxing into running Linux
and slapping on the T1. Would a 68k test environment be useful?
--
___
Ean SchuesslerFreak
Novare International Inc.
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> >choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> >as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that stay
I asked Chris to remove all of the developer lists from the news gateway.
So, if you need to keep getting the lists, be sure to subscribe.
The folks on debian-user want to stay on the gateway. Chris is done with
his papers for this semester and will work on the X-No-Archive problem.
Thanks
Just what operating system do you want to run? If the answer is Debian
Linux, please re-post this question to debian-user@lists.debian.org . If
it's windows, please find someone else to help you, we only do Linux.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-m
For some reason, dselect just decided to remove a whole bunch of
packages that I CERTAINLY DID NOT MARK FOR REMOVAL, like
lynx, apache, mutt, gs-aladdin, and goodness knows what else
since I hit ^C. The available packages list looks fine, so they
are not suddenly obselete. It just upgraded a whole
'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
>
>If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
>choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
>as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
>mainly bo would give me a stable system. No
Question:
I have a Shuttle 569 TX Motherboard, Soundblaster Vibra 16 Plug&Play
Sound Card (Creative Labs ), USR 56K Internal Modem, Matrox Mysteak
Video Card, HP Ink Jet 694C Printer, and a Acer 12x Cd Rom. Are these
all compatible Hardware and how to configure them.
Thanks in Advance
Mike Ac
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
>
> If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
>
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev. Not
> everyone is going that route yet.
True, so they can stay with bo for now.
> Okay there is a different utmp format.
Question:
Would it possible to make a (not altdev):
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/libc5-dev_5.4.33-7.deb
that conflicts with libc6-dev? And would this solve everyones problem?
I'm just wondering if the libc5 in this directory doesn't have problems
with the utmp.
Thanks,
Brando
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> So use this, which should work on any Unix anywhere:
>
> cd ; find . -print | cpio -pdm
But then the package would have to pre-depend on cpio, which isn't even a
`required' or `essential' package. I think this is a bad thing to use in
a {pre,post}{
'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
>
>Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is breaking easy upgradeability really better than corrupting utmp?
>
>Yes, it means the system should work properly at all stages of the upgrade.
Still, the fact that libc5-5.4.33-7 conflicts with libc5-dev means that
I h
Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >The 5.4.33-6 package is _not_ broken, and should not be removed.
> >It rightly conflicts with libc6 due to the different utmp format between
> >libc5 and libc6. The 5.4.33-7 package in hamm has modified utmp routines
> >s
68 matches
Mail list logo
