> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bdale> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Heath) writes:
>> Bdale hates dbs, doesn't know what it is
Bdale> I don't hate dbs. I just get annoyed when packages with
Bdale> complicated build-time patching schemes won't build. My
B
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Heath) writes:
> Bdale hates dbs, doesn't know what it is
I don't hate dbs. I just get annoyed when packages with complicated build-time
patching schemes won't build. My sense is that each of these schemes increases
the probability of build-time failures by deferring wor
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> > There was no alternative system, when I "designed" the dpatch
> > system. The code duplication is needed, because a .dpatch is
> > self-contained. For most cases it calls patch with the .dpatch file as
> > the patch file. Other commands are run after appl
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:05:23AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam Heath writes:
> > Bdale hates dbs, doesn't know what it is, so I don't trust his assement of
> the
> > issue. I never said glibc nor gcc use dbs. They use a system like dbs,
> one I
> > feel is incorrect(each .dpatch syst
Adam Heath writes:
> Bdale hates dbs, doesn't know what it is, so I don't trust his assement of
> the
> issue. I never said glibc nor gcc use dbs. They use a system like dbs, one
> I
> feel is incorrect(each .dpatch system includes code to apply the patch,
> which,
> I feel, is code dup
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 12:02:53PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > Adam Heath, please consider helping the gcc maintainer do some DBS
> > > surgery,
> > > because it is DBS that is keeping gcc from building.
> >
> > Branden, do some fucking research
Branden Robinson writes:
>
> If I'm wrong, fine. Matthias sent me a mail that said this problem should
> be fixed with today's dinstall run.
I said, that I uploaded new packages. But with new package names ...
Let's see when they arrive in testing.
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 12:02:53PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Adam Heath, please consider helping the gcc maintainer do some DBS surgery,
> > because it is DBS that is keeping gcc from building.
>
> Branden, do some fucking research next time, before you place blame. Bug
> 80843 even proves it
For the record, dbs does NOT have this problem with tar changing options for
bzip2. It uses bzip2, gzip, compress(or whatever) directly.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> severity 80842 serious
> severity 80843 serious
> thanks
>
> gcc won't build on arm, so XFree86 won't build on arm, so XFree86 can't go
> into testing, so LOTS of things can't go into testing.
>
> Adam Heath, please consider helping the gcc maintain
Branden Robinson wrote:
>gcc won't build on arm, so XFree86 won't build on arm, so XFree86 can't go
>into testing, so LOTS of things can't go into testing.
The latest "2.95.3" gcc ought to be OK on ARM. I think it should be in woody
soon if it isn't already.
p.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:31:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> severity 80842 serious
> severity 80843 serious
> thanks
>
> gcc won't build on arm, so XFree86 won't build on arm, so XFree86 can't go
> into testing, so LOTS of things can't go into testing.
>
> Adam Heath, please consider help
severity 80842 serious
severity 80843 serious
thanks
gcc won't build on arm, so XFree86 won't build on arm, so XFree86 can't go
into testing, so LOTS of things can't go into testing.
Adam Heath, please consider helping the gcc maintainer do some DBS surgery,
because it is DBS that is keeping gcc
13 matches
Mail list logo
