Bug#317082: Status report?

2005-08-29 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:16:14 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: #317082 is moreinfo. Has a decision been made on how to fix this? If not, frankly it should be downgraded to important, because it only hurts biarch -- meaning it isn't actually a blocker for any single subarchitecture -- and that's

Bug#317082: Not just a dpkg bug

2005-08-18 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:05:42 +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: I guess you will generally have many more issues than this one when you try to build 64-bit packages on a 32-bit buildd (e.g. compiling and running 64-bit programs from configure scripts, running 'make check' or 'make test' targets,

Bug#317082: Not just a dpkg bug

2005-08-18 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:24:14 +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: There is already an inofficial buildd for the ppc64 architecture running for 'unstable'. The respective ppc64 package archive is located at deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main and almost 95% of all source

Bug#317082: Not just a dpkg bug

2005-08-17 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:00:23 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: I don't think this is just a dpkg-dev bug, these bi-arch systems need to provide ldd or an equivalent that can read either form of shared library that it would support. objdump isn't a solution either, while it sometimes can read