On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:56:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Please stop this. The Hurd porters (i.e. we) are responsible for
> providing acceptable patches, not the Debian maintainer.
Thanks Michael.
FWIW the main difference between Hurd and FreeBSD here is in the
approach taken to submi
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 02:49:29PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> It fixes a FTBFS bug though, which makes "important" a reasonable
> severity for this.
It fails to build from source on an architecture it never claimed to
support in the first place...
> However, we respect your opinion about this
severity 611456 wishlist
kthxbye
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:17:44PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Why downgrading this bug report to a wishlist? Due to lack of support
> for multiple cores?? Take a look at the output of x86info for a
That's a part of it, yes - you've submitted a partial patch
severity 611456 wishlist
merge 611456 468696
kthxbye
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:16:32PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> severity 611456 important
Um, really?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
Could someone please try building Leafnode on Hurd? In the past it had
a number of problems which caused it to fail to build but upstream
reports that these should have been fixed. Unfortunately I don't have
access to a Hurd system to test this for myself.
Thanks.
--
"You grabbed my hand and w
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> If there is a portable solution, it is preferred over the more system
> specific solutions. There are several people in Debian GNU/Hurd who have a
> copy of POSIX and experience in writing portable programs and can help out
> on
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 02:01:51PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Independent of this specific bug report (I really only skimmed over it),
> I am starting to reconsider this, and file porting problems upstream first.
> Although the other GNU/Linux ports file them as Debian bugs AFAICS, it seems
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:38:47AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I am a bit surprised about all those "if you want to be different, go away"
> responses lately. "Debian" as a whole of course has to decide if it wants
Frankly, I would not be surprised if most of the people saying that
have not
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:26:11AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 07:00:01PM -0500, Ryan M. Golbeck wrote:
> > I wonder what you think of C99 then?
> Is C99 an ANSI compatible C implementation?
C99 is the latest revision of the ANSI/ISO C standard.
--
"You grabbed my hand a
Could someone with access to a hurd box please try building x86info on
hurd and see if it works? The package probably mostly works (the bits
using Linux device drivers obviously won't but the rest should) but I'd
rather make sure before adding it to the architecture list for the
package.
Alternat
ll be possible to do this.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
11 matches
Mail list logo
