On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, peter karlsson wrote:
> Well, also there is the endian problem. I don't know how 1.4 debs ended
> up on these machines, because I have a check in configure that
> disallows compiles on big-endian machines (since the datastructures are
> defined as little-endian, and I haven't
Christopher C. Chimelis:
> If it were something like GNAT, where we cannot build it on Alpha at
> all without pre-existing binaries (which don't exist for
> alpha-linux), then I would say omit Alpha.
Well, also there is the endian problem. I don't know how 1.4 debs ended
up on these machines, bec
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, peter karlsson wrote:
> Well, also there is the endian problem. I don't know how 1.4 debs ended
> up on these machines, because I have a check in configure that
> disallows compiles on big-endian machines (since the datastructures are
> defined as little-endian, and I haven't
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, peter karlsson wrote:
> So basically, I should change "Architecture: any" to specifically not
> list alpha (and other platforms lacking Qt)?
H...I would say no, personally, only because it's a compiler problem
which is likely to be fixed eventually. If it were something
Christopher C. Chimelis:
> If it were something like GNAT, where we cannot build it on Alpha at
> all without pre-existing binaries (which don't exist for
> alpha-linux), then I would say omit Alpha.
Well, also there is the endian problem. I don't know how 1.4 debs ended
up on these machines, be
Christopher C. Chimelis:
> Alpha has serious gcc/g++ problems with Qt 2.2, so don't expect an alpha
> upload for quite some timejust fyi :-)
So basically, I should change "Architecture: any" to specifically not
list alpha (and other platforms lacking Qt)?
--
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolv
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, peter karlsson wrote:
> So basically, I should change "Architecture: any" to specifically not
> list alpha (and other platforms lacking Qt)?
H...I would say no, personally, only because it's a compiler problem
which is likely to be fixed eventually. If it were something
Christopher C. Chimelis:
> Alpha has serious gcc/g++ problems with Qt 2.2, so don't expect an alpha
> upload for quite some timejust fyi :-)
So basically, I should change "Architecture: any" to specifically not
list alpha (and other platforms lacking Qt)?
--
\\//
peter - http://www.softwol
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've found that Qt builds surprisingly well if I use Compaq's cxx compiler.
> It might be nice if the qt packages were structured to allow rebuilding with
> different compilers, although having Qt Build-Depend on a non-free package is
> not a very good
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've found that Qt builds surprisingly well if I use Compaq's cxx compiler.
> It might be nice if the qt packages were structured to allow rebuilding with
> different compilers, although having Qt Build-Depend on a non-free package is
> not a very good
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > So, if you had your package for 26 days, the possibility is that qt2.2
> > hasn't been available on all arches when you had it installed.
> > Have you tried looking at the build logs and its date ?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> So, if you had your package for 26 days, the possibility is that qt2.2
> hasn't been available on all arches when you had it installed.
>
> Have you tried looking at the build logs and its date ?
Alpha has serious gcc/g++ problems with Qt 2.2, so don
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > So, if you had your package for 26 days, the possibility is that qt2.2
> > hasn't been available on all arches when you had it installed.
> > Have you tried looking at the build logs and its date ?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> So, if you had your package for 26 days, the possibility is that qt2.2
> hasn't been available on all arches when you had it installed.
>
> Have you tried looking at the build logs and its date ?
Alpha has serious gcc/g++ problems with Qt 2.2, so do
In Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:54:14 +0100 (CET) peter cum veritate scripsit :
> It means that all of them built 1.4 (which is weird, since it shouldn't
> build on big-endian machines anyway -- there are checks in configure to
> prevent that). When I check the links provided, they seem to fail on
> that th
Hi!
I'm having major problems getting my package turqstat go through from
unstable to testing, and since testing was reset to potato, the current
version in testing is severely outdated.
Anyway, looking at http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html
I see this:
turqstat 2.0.1 (curre
In Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:54:14 +0100 (CET) peter cum veritate scripsit :
> It means that all of them built 1.4 (which is weird, since it shouldn't
> build on big-endian machines anyway -- there are checks in configure to
> prevent that). When I check the links provided, they seem to fail on
> that t
Hi!
I'm having major problems getting my package turqstat go through from
unstable to testing, and since testing was reset to potato, the current
version in testing is severely outdated.
Anyway, looking at http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html
I see this:
turqstat 2.0.1 (curr
18 matches
Mail list logo
