Davide Barbieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > My pgp key was generated on a i386; now I need to port on sparc
> >
> >Hmmm... aren't they binary-compatible?
>
> no, they aren't if the machine have different endianess
Que? I use the same PGP key on i386, m68k and sparc machines withou
Hi,
I'm finally getting round to updating my packages which include 4
shared libraries and I need to know if I should exclude the sparc from
the building of the libc5 versions of the libraries?
The alpha people certainly don't want the libc5 versions, so excluding
sparc will be no problem, if it'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
> > * bash 2.01 and its libreadline cant be compiled because it
> > comes out linked against both libc5 and libc6; same with
> > ncurses3.4.
>
> Umm, I think that's just untrue.
Yep.
> Do you mean the *dependencies* show both libc5 and libc6?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
> actually,
> studentloan+% ls -al /lib/ld-*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 447196 Dec 1 14:27 /lib/ld-2.0.90.so*
> -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root26957 Feb 21 1997 /lib/ld-linux.so.1*
> -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root26957 Feb 21 1997
Juan Cespedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, both ld-linux.so.2 and ld-linux.so.1 should be fixed; nobody
> should be able to run a setuid program in a LD_PRELOAD environment.
> At least, I can't find any reason to allow it, and many people could
> use it to try to find exploits.
But there _a
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ lots of stuff that was intended for debian-private and not
debian-sparc ]
Excuse me, but which genius decided to use a *public* mailing list as
a Maintainer: address? Please don't do that it a) violates policy[1],
and b) is plain silly,
[ This Cc: line is ridiculous, nice one someone ]
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In order to upload kernel-image along with its sources, should I
> create a dedicated kernel-source-sparc package or requests the diffs
> to be merged into the Debian kernel-source?
No, and no.
> What
Juan Cespedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't want that address to receive mails addressed to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
Neither do I, but the maintainer of @packages.debian.org disagrees.
(BTW, he claimed "the sparc folks" did).
> I'll change the Maintainer: field in the next upload (in one o
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, how to handle the kernel-patches package ? I have to upload a
> binary package for it (kernel-patches-*_sparc.deb) but should I also
> upload its source counterpart ?
Yes, because packages in main should always have source, if they don't
they'll b
Juan Cespedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > BTW, how to handle the kernel-patches package ?
> > I have to upload a binary package for it (kernel-patches-*_sparc.deb) but
> > should I also upload its source counterpart ?
>
> Well, I think so... every binary package should have an
> associa
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can upload a new release and forward this mail to the libgdbm
> maintainer.
No need; I read this list.
> PS: I compiled amd (which is based on NDBM) with libc6's DB with no
> troubles (just replaced the gdbm include by ).
Did you actually test it, a
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> fakeroot -- NEEDS TO BE UPDATED to fix security hole. I tried
> compiling it (compiled fine) but when I would type, for instance,
> "fakeroot debian/rules clean", it would cause the make process to do
> nothing but eat 90% of CPU.
I looked at this back
Hi,
[ Just looking at some ftp.debian.org problems in relation to Quinn
Diff, and these are the sparc-related areas ]
a) Why is kernel-patch*sparc* Architecture: sparc and not
Architecture: all? You don't need a sparc to install it and cross
compile a sparc kernel (I assume). m68k's ker
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup wrote:
>
> > b) Is there a binary package produced from the libc-sparc source
> >package (in oldlibs)? I can't see one looking at
> >hamm/hamm/binary-sparc/Packages. If not, I'll ask
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: gdbm
> Version: 1.7.3-24
>
> There is a conflict between gdbm & glibc 2.1 about libndbm.{a,so}
> links: both packages provide them.
Hmm I don't think you meant to send this to debian-sparc. Anyways,
I'm aware of this problem (have been for mo
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: gdbm
> Version: 1.7.3-24
>
> There is a conflict between gdbm & glibc 2.1 about libndbm.{a,so}
> links: both packages provide them.
This is now fixed in 1.7.3-25 which was installed into frozen and
unstable a couple of hours ago.
--
James
~Y
Hi,
This is the 3rd time, I've asked this question, it be nice if I could
have a conclusive answer this time. Christian Meder has reported bugs
against two of my shared library packages (pwdb and gdbm) claiming
that sparc _does_ want libc5-compat packages built; but the last time
I asked on this
Alexander Jolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unpacking bison (from bison_1.25-12.deb) ...
>
> You must upgrade dpkg before installing this package.
Cool, you've somehow got a dpkg (<< 1.4.0.8); that's impressive.
--
James
Alexander Jolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup writes:
> > Alexander Jolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Unpacking bison (from bison_1.25-12.deb) ...
> > >
> > > You must upgrade dpkg before installing this package.
Alexander Jolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup writes:
> > Either you have an old version of dpkg hanging around somewhere or
> > sparc's dpkg is seriously FU (unlikely); I suggest you hunt around
> > looking for rogue copies, and see what dpkg i
"Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roman Hodek and James Troup have devised a distributed system for
> keeping architectures up to date with i386 (or, more generally, just
> up-to-date with source uploads).
It's actually 99% Roman's work, I just pimp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > Some one said recently they would post a list of the packages that
> > wouldn't auto compile for sparc from slink. Is this still going to be
> > posted, I'd like to help getting these things compiled.
>
> I would like to see wanna-build and it
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, yes 1.4.0.31 is the latest slink. I just noticed our problem is
> the convergence of slink binary-sparc packages and potato binary-all
> packages (dpkg-dev is 1.4.1 in potato/main/binary-sparc/base). This
> should really be resolved before we can real
Hi,
Sorry for the delay, but it's finally been done. The following
packages have been removed from slink because the version in sid was
from potato. Please recompile them with the slink source and hax0r
the .changes file to say `frozen' only and upload them.
apache, apache-common, f2c, libgdb
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm attempting to build new bootdisks but it fails because some packages are
> missing. I don't have an extensive list handy but I remember at least a
> problem with libgdbm (and maybe others).
> In fact, it is still in sid but not referenced in slink
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> checker
Obsoleted by gccchecker, however both are i386 specific.
> courtney
Removed from the archive due to copyright problems.
> fdflush (is this needed at all ? sparc floppy drives are auto-eject,
> therefore this package s
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mozilla does not appear. This is a serious problem because it is the
> only graphical Web browser in "main".
Que? What do you think arena, chimera2, gzilla and w3+xemacs are?
--
James
Joop Stakenborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 06:56:27PM -, Debian Installer wrote:
> >
> > Installing:
> > z8530-utils2_3.0-4_sparc.deb
> > to dists/potato/main/binary-sparc/hamradio/z8530-utils2_3.0-4.deb
> > replacing z8530-utils2_3.0-3.deb
> >
>
> Sorry guys,
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could whoever setup the buildd on xia01 please fix it to pass -B to
^^
> dpkg-buildpackage as God and the upstream maintainers intended?
Or `-m', even.
--
James
Hi,
While hacking on quinn diff I noticed the following warnings from
quinn diff:
kernel-patch-2.0.35-sparc has an architeture field of "sparc" which doesn't
include i386.
kernel-patch-2.2.0-sparc has an architeture field of "sparc" which doesn't
include i386.
kernel-patch-2.2.1-sparc has an ar
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a) I have removed kernel-source-sparc-2.2.1 and the 2.0.35 and 2.2.0
>patches on the basis that they're probably obsolete. If I'm wrong,
>now would be a good time to say so.
I take that back, I see the latter two are new
Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only UltraSparc kernel image in Debian is compiled from
> kernel-source-sparc-2.2.1 (a CVS kernel with some additional patches
> added).
This is serverly wrong. The kernel-patch mechanism works and exists
for a reason; we do not need or want to bloa
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > I was just about to try to create some new sparc CD images and the run has
> > failed again, this time because the Packages file for the main section on
> > sparc is empty. I've checked and this is the case on master, no
*bop*; somebody fix please.
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gnupg
Version: 1.0.4-2
Severity: important
The version of gnupg shipped with the newly released potato 2.2r3 on sparc is
linked with libc6 2.2. As such, it's not installable on a fresh install and
it's not upgraded when you want to update
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also note, that the only thing on auric that is from unstable is
> tetex.
Err, and postgresql and apt...
--
James
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BVut aren't the build daemons supposed to fill a bug if this is the
> case, at least that is what the m68k autobuilders dom and also the
> sparc one, i think, at least i received lmails from them in the
> past.
build daemons don't file bugs, humans do. overwork
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe, but i think m68k at least as the buildd daemon fill the bugs
> automatically
No, it doesn't. As I already told you.
--
James
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My packages build fine or sparc, but the sparc buildlog no more appears at
> buildd.debian.org, as it was previously.
Whoops. Lossage during ~buildd reconstruction after an accident by
parties who shall remain nameless. Fixed now.
--
James
--
T
Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> libwww 5.4.0 has a really weird problem in that it only builds on an
> ext2 filesystem, not on ReiserFS. I've already spent days
> researching this and haven't found the problem; it seems to be
> hidden inside make.
The sparc build daemon doesn't use
Christian Jönsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As the newely released gcc-3.2 has some major improvements in C++
> common ABI, I was just wondering if we could expect a gcc-3.2 for
> woody.
>
> If so, the glibc requires a rebuild with a newer binutils, one is just
> recently released off of binu
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did the machine run out of space on /tmp or something?
No, it's a fun race condition where packages uploaded in reasonably
quick succession can cause the source tree of the second upload to
disappear out from under the buildd. vore, as one of the f
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:40:42AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Yes, i did see it in the database today. Thanks.
> > >
> > > BTW, are you the buildd maintainer ? if yes, you could sign the ocaml
> > > sparc built from september 24, so it get uploaded w
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > All other arches compile this documentation correctly. The reported
> > missing files are in the source tarball. If I download and install
> > the texinfo and texi2html reported in the logs, I can interactively
> > build this documentation on these two
Chris Beggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Mar 2003, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This machine has been in production for almost two years now (maybe
>> more?).
>
> Is is running debian stable, testing, or unstable?
It runs stable, i.e. it use to run potato but now runs woody
44 matches
Mail list logo
