On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 07:48:35PM -0800 or thereabouts, Craig Dickson wrote:
> James D Strandboge wrote:
>
> > There is a fix in 2.4.17 which allows it to be compiled with sid's new
> > binutils. If you try to compile kernel 2.4.16 or lower on an updated
> > sid (and possibly woody now), then th
James D Strandboge wrote:
> There is a fix in 2.4.17 which allows it to be compiled with sid's new
> binutils. If you try to compile kernel 2.4.16 or lower on an updated
> sid (and possibly woody now), then the compile will probably fail.
The original point of this discussion was that some of us
On Sun, 2001-12-23 at 12:38, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
> > Peter Good wrote:
> >
> > > Binutils on Sid compiled 2.4.17 fine, might be different for Woody.
> >
> > Binutils is identical in Sid and Woody at the moment.
> >
> > According to the bug reports, the
On 22 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Peter Good wrote:
>
> > Binutils on Sid compiled 2.4.17 fine, might be different for Woody.
>
> Binutils is identical in Sid and Woody at the moment.
>
> According to the bug reports, the problem may or may not occur depending
> on how the kernel is configu
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 08:37:47AM +1000, Peter Good wrote:
> Binutils on Sid compiled 2.4.17 fine, might be different for Woody.
>
Tracking woody daily. Yesterday downloaded and compiled 2.4.17 and
running the same without any problems. Maybe there are some options that
causes binutils to
Peter Good wrote:
> Binutils on Sid compiled 2.4.17 fine, might be different for Woody.
Binutils is identical in Sid and Woody at the moment.
According to the bug reports, the problem may or may not occur depending
on how the kernel is configured. You got lucky; I didn't.
Craig
Binutils on Sid compiled 2.4.17 fine, might be different for Woody.
Peter.
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 06:33, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Alan Chandler wrote:
> > Since 2.4.17 is out now I would use that - IMHO its the most stable
>
> Of course, it just came out yesterday, so any judgment on its stability
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 22 December 2001 8:33 pm, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Alan Chandler wrote:
> > Since 2.4.17 is out now I would use that - IMHO its the most stable
>
> Of course, it just came out yesterday, so any judgment on its stability
> is premature.
>
> Th
Alan Chandler wrote:
> Since 2.4.17 is out now I would use that - IMHO its the most stable
Of course, it just came out yesterday, so any judgment on its stability
is premature.
That said, I'm running 2.4.17 now and I haven't observed any problems
yet.
Btw, Debian Woody/Sid users who want to com
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:50:45 +0100
Gerald Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello to all!
>
> Im currentlc tryin to get my XPert 2000 pro card to work on my woody...
> In the process I'm at a point, where I suspect, that I got to get the
> right Kernel with DRI compiled in ... if there is some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 22 December 2001 6:50 pm, Gerald Richter wrote:
> Hello to all!
>
> Im currentlc tryin to get my XPert 2000 Pro card to work on my woody...
> In the process I'm at a point, where I suspect, that I got to get the
> right Kernel with DRI comp
Hello to all!
Im currentlc tryin to get my XPert 2000 Pro card to work on my woody...
In the process I'm at a point, where I suspect, that I got to get the
right Kernel with DRI compiled in ... if there is something like this
option... I'm rather exhausted because of all the many things I've tried
12 matches
Mail list logo
