On Tuesday 12 July 2005 05:44 am, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:13:47PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> > Well, libopenspc will FTBFS on all arches but i386, since the core is a
> > bunch of x86 ASM written by hand, so I've set it to Architecture: i386 in
> > debian/control. Is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:13:47PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> Well, libopenspc will FTBFS on all arches but i386, since the core is a bunch
> of x86 ASM written by hand, so I've set it to Architecture: i386 in
> debian/control. Is this the right thing to do? If I do this, can I safely
> overri
On Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:46 AM, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> You need to make sure the package is listed in
> "packages-arch-specific":
>
> http://www.buildd.net/buildd/Packages-arch-specific
That's a horribly out-of-date (and unofficial) copy. Not altogether
surprising g
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:13:47PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2005 02:22 pm, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:28:00PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> > > I went ahead and backported all of the 0.0.4 changes into the 0.0.3 code
> > > (to keep the shipped OpenS
On Monday 11 July 2005 02:22 pm, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:28:00PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> > I went ahead and backported all of the 0.0.4 changes into the 0.0.3 code
> > (to keep the shipped OpenSPC code), and I'm still working out some of the
> > kinks (I do believ
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:22:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:28:00PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> > I went ahead and backported all of the 0.0.4 changes into the 0.0.3 code
> > (to
> > keep the shipped OpenSPC code), and I'm still working out some of the kinks
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:28:00PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> I went ahead and backported all of the 0.0.4 changes into the 0.0.3 code (to
> keep the shipped OpenSPC code), and I'm still working out some of the kinks
> (I do believe that the GNU autotools hate me) but it's otherwise working.
>
Yes, it's 386-specific ASM -- if I can get a confirmation on the override from
someone I'll be good to go.
I went ahead and backported all of the 0.0.4 changes into the 0.0.3 code (to
keep the shipped OpenSPC code), and I'm still working out some of the kinks
(I do believe that the GNU autotoo
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Ryan Schultz wrote:
> I'm trying to package libopenspc, so that I can correctly build the CVS
> (0.0.4) release of xmms-openspc (upstream said to mark it as 0.0.4 because
> there won't be anymore changes), to package it, and I've encountered what
> seems
9 matches
Mail list logo
