Big thanks to everybody -- Stephen for writing patches, Dieter for calmly
knocking down back out of their socks, and to Koen for cleaning it all up.
According to http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=&pkg=afio
we are starting to look more golden:
* 2.4.7-7 (mipsel) (latest build at Aug 3 1
All,
> Thanks for all the testing of my recent patched version. Good to hear
> that it works..
Yep, thanks for all for the great cooperation and feedback,
> BUT based on the tests by Stephen and Dieter I now recommend that in
> the 2.4.7-7 unstable version, the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
> -D_LARG
Hi all,
Thanks for all the testing of my recent patched version. Good to hear
that it works..
Dirk: with respect to your question
>Does that mean that I should undo the powerpc conditional which removes
>those two flags, but can leave them for everything else?
I made (on purpose) no explicit
Tach auch!
Am Sam, den 03 August 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:03:23PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> > It seems to work without error for me too. I using also the 64-bit
> > settings.
>
> Excellent. Let me contact Norbert Veber who did the >2gb patch for i386 to
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:03:23PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> It seems to work without error for me too. I using also the 64-bit
> settings.
Excellent. Let me contact Norbert Veber who did the >2gb patch for i386 to
see if that still works for him, and then -7 gets ready.
Dirk
--
Good judg
Tach auch!
Am Sam, den 03 August 2002, schrieb Stephen van Egmond:
> Koen Holtman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The diff file adds some notes in the history file about what I have
> > done/still need to do. The diff contains a bit more cosmetic
> > improvements on earlier cosmetic improvements t
Koen Holtman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The diff file adds some notes in the history file about what I have
> done/still need to do. The diff contains a bit more cosmetic
> improvements on earlier cosmetic improvements than I would like, but
> that is life.
It compiles pristinely, and runs fl
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 04:12:56PM -0700, Koen Holtman wrote:
> Attached is a diff file, which should be applied against the
> pre-release -6 version (still??) at
>
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/edd/code/debian/UnderReview/
>
> to get a version I call afio-2.4.7-6kh1 -- Dirk will merge thi
Koen,
> FYI: this evening I'll be going over the -6 version which I downloaded
> earlier from
>
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/edd/code/debian/UnderReview/
Or if you want, you could use the actually released -6 version I made
last night. Should be on any Debian mirror, eg, here:
http
FYI: this evening I'll be going over the -6 version which I downloaded
earlier from
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/edd/code/debian/UnderReview/
When I'm done (hopefully by the end of the evening) I'll mail around a
patch file with the fix for the inode bug and any other changes/fixes I
ca
> I should problably mention that the bug with the large inode numbers (e.g.
> after recompiling X) that was discussed earlier today will affect the afio
> build on all platforms.
Yes, I know. But I made my release last night 21:00 Central time before I got
that message.
Stephen: Could you te
I should problably mention that the bug with the large inode numbers (e.g.
after recompiling X) that was discussed earlier today will affect the afio
build on all platforms.
Cheers,
Koen.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:13:39AM -0700, Koen Holtman w
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:13:39AM -0700, Koen Holtman wrote:
> Yes, if you want to release -6 into unstable with these makefile
> changes, I am OK with that.
That worked fairly well. From http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=afio
* 2.4.7-6 (s390) (latest build at Aug 1 23:32: successful)
Hi Dirk,
Yes, if you want to release -6 into unstable with these makefile
changes, I am OK with that.
Cheers,
Koen.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > 6) I agree completely with Stephen's conclusions that there may be
> >more endianness bugs lurking, so in the short ter
> 6) I agree completely with Stephen's conclusions that there may be
>more endianness bugs lurking, so in the short term, I recommend to
>Dirk that any afio release on debian that pretends to be stable
>should omit the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE options
>in the powe
Hi all,
I had to make a big diagram of the thread in order to understand
everything. Now I want to summarise where we are, as far as I can
determine, and then add some new points.
0) linux 64 bit file support is still a bit of a mess, see the afio
history file.
1) in Debian afio 2.4.7-3. Dir
Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Me neither. I think what we need at this point is to short-circuit
> something between Dieter, Stephen and you. Stephen has been
> working hard to wrestle this bug down, but it keeps popping up on
> Dieter's machine.
I just noticed that this bu
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 15:00, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > BTW I do not have access to a powerpc system.
>
> Me neither.
Yes, you do. It's called voltaire.debian.org.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, F
Hi Koen,
Good to know you're back.
> Just got back from a vacation without e-mail. I've been reading over
> the powerpc thread but it will take me a bit to say something
> intelligent...
>
> BTW I do not have access to a powerpc system.
Me neither. I think what we need at this point is to sh
Hi all,
Just got back from a vacation without e-mail. I've been reading over
the powerpc thread but it will take me a bit to say something
intelligent...
BTW I do not have access to a powerpc system.
Cheers,
Koen.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Tach auch!
>
> Am Son, den 2
Tach auch!
Am Son, den 28 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> Stephen had kindly provided a new patch which I incorporated into a revised
> 2.4.7-6 release candidate to be found at
>
> http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/debian/UnderReview
^ there is e
Stephen had kindly provided a new patch which I incorporated into a revised
2.4.7-6 release candidate to be found at
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/debian/UnderReview
I also added a 'test' target for Debian rules which creates an archive of
the sources, minus the debian/ dire
Stephen van Egmond ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So I've narrowed the problem to the archive-testing routine.
Found it.It makes me want to hurt something, it's so stupid.
afio.h says:
void inalloc();
afio.c says:
STATIC void
inalloc (len)
reg uint len;
inalloc is called in some circ
Stephen van Egmond ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It seems my patch is half-assed. I'm going to pursue all the
> warnings issued by -Wall, and issue a new patch shortly.
I've been testing afio on ppc some more, trying to sort out
the difference between 64-bit settings and regular 32. I'll denote
Stephen van Egmond ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > received a new bug report, and patch, by Stephen van Egmond for 64-bit
> > powerpc systems [ cf #153948 ].
>
> It seems my patch is half-assed. I'm going to pursue all the
> warnings issued by -Wall,
Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Damn. Not sure what we should do next, and why it works for Stephen.
Rats, now it's broken for me.
I'll poke at it for a bit. Meanwhile, the ppc build in testing remains
broken and you might want to upload a new version that turns back off
the 6
Tach auch!
Am Fre, den 26 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
>
> > Am Don, den 25 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 04:33:48PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> > > > The new archivs are buggy. If I make afio -t on them the following
> > > > errors appear:
> > >
> Am Don, den 25 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 04:33:48PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> > > The new archivs are buggy. If I make afio -t on them the following
> > > errors appear:
> >
> > Thanks for checking. There is the odd chance that your version isn't qu
Tach auch!
Am Don, den 25 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 04:33:48PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> > The new archivs are buggy. If I make afio -t on them the following
> > errors appear:
>
> Thanks for checking. There is the odd chance that your version isn't qui
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 04:33:48PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Mit, den 24 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:10:17PM -0400, Stephen van Egmond wrote:
> > > Here is a new patch to address the compile-time issues
> > > of afio. It supersedes the
Hello,
Am Mit, den 24 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:10:17PM -0400, Stephen van Egmond wrote:
> > Here is a new patch to address the compile-time issues
> > of afio. It supersedes the earlier patch I provided, and
> > should be applied to 2.4.7-2.
> >
> > I h
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:10:17PM -0400, Stephen van Egmond wrote:
> Here is a new patch to address the compile-time issues
> of afio. It supersedes the earlier patch I provided, and
> should be applied to 2.4.7-2.
>
> I hope that I'm providing these patches right. I'm producing
> them with dif
Here is a new patch to address the compile-time issues
of afio. It supersedes the earlier patch I provided, and
should be applied to 2.4.7-2.
I hope that I'm providing these patches right. I'm producing
them with diff -ur .
diff -u afio-2.4.7-old/Makefile afio-2.4.7/Makefile
--- afio-2.4.7-ol
Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> received a new bug report, and patch, by Stephen van Egmond for 64-bit
> powerpc systems [ cf #153948 ].
It seems my patch is half-assed. I'm going to pursue all the
warnings issued by -Wall, and issue a new patch shortly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> A while back, Dieter Schuster reported (and then kindly fixed with a patch)
> an issue with afio files on 32-bit powerpc systems [ cf #144986 ]. Today I
> received a new bug report, and patch, by Stephen van Egmond for 64-bit
> powerpc systems [ cf #1
Hello!
Am Die, den 23 Juli 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> an issue with afio files on 32-bit powerpc systems [ cf #144986 ]. Today I
> received a new bug report, and patch, by Stephen van Egmond for 64-bit
> powerpc systems [ cf #153948 ].
>
> I would greatly appreciate help from powerpc-sav
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 03:52, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> A while back, Dieter Schuster reported (and then kindly fixed with a patch)
> an issue with afio files on 32-bit powerpc systems [ cf #144986 ]. Today I
> received a new bug report, and patch, by Stephen van Egmond for 64-bit
> powerpc sys
A while back, Dieter Schuster reported (and then kindly fixed with a patch)
an issue with afio files on 32-bit powerpc systems [ cf #144986 ]. Today I
received a new bug report, and patch, by Stephen van Egmond for 64-bit
powerpc systems [ cf #153948 ].
I would greatly appreciate help from power
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> if you avoid Win64, sizeof(long)==sizeof(void*)
[...]
> So the only question is, do you care about Win64 at all?
Anyone knows why M$ decided to go with a P64 model instead of an LP64 model?
To prevent people from casting pointers to integers at a
Michel =?ISO-8859- writes:
> On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 17:21, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
>> [somebody]
>>> I have a Apple. PowerPC 7450 (PowerBook G4). Is it a big or a little
>>> endian system? And where is the difference.
>>
>> I wrote an article about endian issues and some other basics of portable
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 17:21, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> > I have a Apple. PowerPC 7450 (PowerBook G4). Is it a big or a little
> > endian system? And where is the difference.
>
> I wrote an article about endian issues and some other basics of portable
> programming at:
>
> http://www.byteswa
> I have a Apple. PowerPC 7450 (PowerBook G4). Is it a big or a little
> endian system? And where is the difference.
I wrote an article about endian issues and some other basics of portable
programming at:
http://www.byteswap.net/mikesnotes/2002/getting-started/
Best,
Mike
--
Michael D. Craw
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Am Die, den 30 April 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> > > Let's start with the usual suspects, in particular endianness. Are all
> > > the types correct? If 64 bit variables are treated as 32 bit, that could
> > > work on little endian systems but not
Tach auch!
Am Die, den 30 April 2002, schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> > Let's start with the usual suspects, in particular endianness. Are all
> > the types correct? If 64 bit variables are treated as 32 bit, that could
> > work on little endian systems but not big endian...
I have a Apple. PowerPC
> On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 04:46, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >
> > A little while back, I applied a patch to afio by our own Norbert Veber, and
> > blessed upstream, to enable afio to work on archives >2gb. This was #110853.
> > It added some sort of 64bit arithmetic flag
> >
> > We now have #1449
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 04:46, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> A little while back, I applied a patch to afio by our own Norbert Veber, and
> blessed upstream, to enable afio to work on archives >2gb. This was #110853.
> It added some sort of 64bit arithmetic flag
>
> We now have #144986 -- it appears
A little while back, I applied a patch to afio by our own Norbert Veber, and
blessed upstream, to enable afio to work on archives >2gb. This was #110853.
It added some sort of 64bit arithmetic flag
We now have #144986 -- it appears that powerpc is confused by this. Could
some kind soul with powe
47 matches
Mail list logo
