Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:45:35AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The final results are in:
>
> Summary table:
> Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total
> ---++-++-++---++--
> armel || 3 |
t;For now I only want to disable it."
in the message you quote.
This seems in complete opposition to what you claim he did say.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has gotten a serie of patches
applied to some packages for his pure-64 effort. I wonder if this effort
helps in this case, or causes problems.
Do you know what exactly is causing this problem ? Or could you list the
140 packages which you already detected to be problematic ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
week to confirm this.
I don't particularly feel like backporting those fixes to 2.6.17, especially
as the etch kernel target is 2.6.18, but others may volunteer to do it, or i
may do it if i find some time.
Friendlly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
produce the
compressed vmlinuz-* kernel, and dding it to a prep partition).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:57:23AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sven Luther:
>
> > i guess sparc-*-* should be changed by sparc*-*-*, and we can then
> > close this bug.
>
> But why does the host triplet not match sparc*-*-*?
Because it was buggy ? I believe the deve
rchitecture has alignment constraints
over doubles."
echo "That's a safe bet: Objective Caml will work even if"
echo "this architecture has actually no alignment constraints."
echo "#define ARCH_ALIGN_DOUBLE" >> m.h;;
esac;;
esac
i guess sparc-*-* should be changed by sparc*-*-*, and we can then close this
bug.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:44:33PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:38:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:55:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Horms,
> > > > The current d-i kernel image is linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6 0.0
and include the kernel-source changelog always in the
kernel-images, so that there is no doubt of the above kind.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:18:58PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > rebuild the packages ?
>
> Nope, that would be James ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or Ryan
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Ok, no problem, i am building the package by hand right now, and will
upload it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:12:43AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:19:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:03:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:03:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Hello, ...
> >
> > I wanted to build the ocaml package for sparc, since it is the only
> > thing stopping ocaml 3.06 (and a load of oth
maintainer is and
if he will be around shortly to sign the packages, this will make me
happy also.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
And as thus, ocaml cannot be moved to testing, as can be seen under :
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=ocaml
Excuses for ocaml
* Maintainer: Sven Luther
* 8 days old (needed 2 days)
* out of date on ia64: ocaml, ocaml-base, ocaml-native-compilers (from
3.06-6)
* out of d
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:16:41AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
> >>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:07:30AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
>
> >&g
r rage128 board in it, is it not ?
I guess even the just released Radeon 9000 PCI boards could be used, but
then i don't own a Ultra5 box, and don't know if many people will do
this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
I bet it isn't really 1 (actually
> 1.000111022302 ;-) Maybe there's no bug: it's just truncation
> error? Maybe the maths unit on the alpha is better than the one on the ia32
> on
> this test (no suprise there!)
Also, note that alpha is a 64bit plateform, and that as thus it could be that
it handles some things better than ia32 or ppc. Not sure if this influences
floating point values, i guess not.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 03:26:03PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:05:39PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled
> > against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x
> You mean we have to
19 matches
Mail list logo
