Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org (2014-08-31):
On 31/08/14 07:00, Philipp Kern wrote:
Is perhaps the same true for stop_rdnssd() on the next line?
So Steven committed a patch in to git, getting rid of the dhcp part;
Philipp, should I upload that and we'll figure out the rdnssd part
another
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:55:24AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org (2014-08-31):
On 31/08/14 07:00, Philipp Kern wrote:
Is perhaps the same true for stop_rdnssd() on the next line?
So Steven committed a patch in to git, getting rid of the dhcp part;
Hi Aurelien!
I just noticed that there seems to be something wrong with
packages.debian.org regarding sh4. Many packages are not
listed there as available even though they are built and
installed.
For example, src:glibc, has been fully built on sh4, yet:
https://packages.debian.org/sid/libc6
Hi folks,
I believe the existing debian-ports setup (as an exploder pointing to
all the different port lists) is not working well at all. It's a
confusing setup to many people, which leads to lots of cross-list
noise that's probably not warranted. Some of the traffic is also
clearly meant to be
Hi,
On 05/09/14 18:39, Steve McIntyre wrote:
* Remove the confusion: turn debian-ports into a separate *normal*
mailing list, announce it and let people subscribe to it [...]
That sounds perfect IMHO. It could be used for general discussion about
porting, upcoming new ports, or any ports
On 05/09/14 18:04, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
For example, src:glibc, has been fully built on sh4, yet:
yamato:~# apt-cache policy libc6
libc6:
Installed: 2.19-9
Candidate: 2.19-9
Version table:
*** 2.19-9 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
I can only find arch:all packages
Steven Chamberlain dixit:
On 05/09/14 18:39, Steve McIntyre wrote:
* Remove the confusion: turn debian-ports into a separate *normal*
mailing list, announce it and let people subscribe to it [...]
That sounds perfect IMHO. It could be used for general discussion about
porting, upcoming
Your message dated Fri, 05 Sep 2014 21:23:50 +
with message-id e1xq0z0-0001zi...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#190367: fixed in libcanberra 0.30-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #190367,
regarding Add support for record file locks
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 05 Sep 2014 21:23:50 +
with message-id e1xq0z0-0001zi...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#190367: fixed in libcanberra 0.30-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #190367,
regarding libc0.3-dev: fcntl F_GETLK not implemented (ENOSYS)
to be marked as done.
This
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org (2014-09-05):
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:55:24AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org (2014-08-31):
On 31/08/14 07:00, Philipp Kern wrote:
Is perhaps the same true for stop_rdnssd() on the next line?
So Steven committed a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reopen 190367
Bug #190367 {Done: Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org} [hurd] libc0.3-dev:
fcntl F_GETLK not implemented (ENOSYS)
Bug #748943 {Done: Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org} [hurd] Add support
for record file locks
'reopen' may be
11 matches
Mail list logo
