On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 04:23:17PM +, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> Thanks for catching the typo. We use "x86_64-linux-gnux32"
Thanks for the quick reply.
On IRC Steve Langasek pointed out that some part of the difference
resides in the architecture-kernel part. You cannot run a x32 binary on
an
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Josh Triplett wrote:
> As a more optimal solution, packages could register file triggers on
> appropriate paths in /usr/local
Some packages already do (man-db for example).
> and dpkg could provide a means for an
> administrator to manually trigger those triggers after runnin
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: wishlist
Many packages provide support for locally installed software in
/usr/local. For instance, man-db supports locally installed manpages,
scripting languages like Python support locally installed modules,
fontconfig supports locally installed fonts, an
> -Original Message-
> From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:11 AM
> To: Kamble, Nitin A
> Cc: Helmut Grohne; 667...@bugs.debian.org; Debian Bug Tracking System
> Subject: Re: Bug#667037: dpkg: please add x32 abi to triplettable
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2
> -Original Message-
> From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:35 AM
> To: Helmut Grohne; 667...@bugs.debian.org; Debian Bug Tracking System
> Cc: Kamble, Nitin A
> Subject: Re: Bug#667037: dpkg: please add x32 abi to triplettable
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 201
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Kamble, Nitin A
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:35 AM
>> To: Helmut Grohne; 667...@bugs.debian.org; Debian Bug Tracking System
>> Cc: Kamble, Nitin A
>> Subject: Re: Bug#667037: dp
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.16.2
> Severity: wishlist
> Block: 667023
>
> Dear dpkg maintainers and H.J. Lu,
>
> H.J. Lu is pushing the x32 abi into tools. His work is already part of
> binutils 2.22 and gcc-4.7 in Debian sid. The next step to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 667023 with 667037
Bug #667023 [src:eglibc] src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the
x32 sub architecture on amd64
667023 was blocked by: 667005
667023 was blocking: 667005
Added blocking bug(s) of 667023: 667037
> thanks
Stoppin
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: wishlist
Block: 667023
Dear dpkg maintainers and H.J. Lu,
H.J. Lu is pushing the x32 abi into tools. His work is already part of
binutils 2.22 and gcc-4.7 in Debian sid. The next step to support this
architecture is bootstrapping it as a Debian port for whe
>> Well any flag not only optimization levels are affected but -OX is
>> probably the most common case.
>
> Any flag that allow overriding a previous value of the same flag
> and that maintainers are likely to change... wich doesn't make many.
>
True, I was also thinking about the "silly" case whe
We use dpkg-gencontrol and supply a full path to "debian/control" with the -c
option. The full path to the control file is used, because dpkg-gencontrol is
not run from the directory where "debian/control" exists.
Do you have do run dpkg-gencontrol in the directory where "debian/control"
exists
retitle 667008 dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does not use the control file
specified with option -c for the lock-file
thanks
Hi,
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Mats Danielsson wrote:
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> The solution to Bug #642608 introduced another problem. The lock on the
> control
> file always uses t
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 667008 dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does not use the control file
> specified with option -c for the lock-file
Bug #667008 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does use the control file
specified with optin -c for the lock-file
Changed Bug
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Miguel Colon wrote:
> Well any flag not only optimization levels are affected but -OX is
> probably the most common case.
Any flag that allow overriding a previous value of the same flag
and that maintainers are likely to change... wich doesn't make many.
> Also some packages
The brief description (summary) should be "dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does NOT
use the control file specified with optin -c for the lock-file". I missed the
"not" when reported the bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The solution to Bug #642608 introduced another problem. The lock on the control
file always uses the file "debian/control".
The correct behavior should be to use the file specifed with the option -c.
/Mats
-- System Informat
> I'm not sure what the proper approach would be. On the other hand, I'm not
> entirely convinced that it's important to let the user have the last word
> in cases where maintainers have opted for a specific optimization level:
> - building with -Os is typically made for udeb and I don't see a
> c
Hello,
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Miguel Colon wrote:
> I would guess the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="noopt" problem should be reported
> against the package that suffer from this case
Yes, definitely.
> but should not the user options in DEB_flag_* (or
> $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/dpkg/buildflags.conf) override the
> D
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 666987 1.16.2
Bug #666987 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-buildflags: DEB_*_MAINT_* overrides user options.
Marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.2.
> notfound 666987 1.16..2
Bug #666987 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-buildflags: DEB_*_MAINT_* overrides user options.
Ther
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16..2
Hello:
I noticed that some of the options I set in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and
DEB_*_APPEND get overriden by DEB_*_MAINT_*.
Also I noticed http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=653846
seems to suggest to set
DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-Os
DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APP
20 matches
Mail list logo
