On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:39:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> > insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> > debian-devel.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:39:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> > insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> > debian-devel
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:39:05PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:34:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > So the version of libc6-dev I build against is irrelevant?
>
> As long as you have gcc 2.95.3-9 installed, yes.
Okay, thanks. Cookin' 4.0.2-13 as we speak.
--
G.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:34:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:39:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> > > insufficient to
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:39:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> > insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> > debian-devel.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:39:05PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:34:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > So the version of libc6-dev I build against is irrelevant?
>
> As long as you have gcc 2.95.3-9 installed, yes.
Okay, thanks. Cookin' 4.0.2-13 as we speak.
--
G
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:34:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:39:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> > > insufficient to
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:39:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> > insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> > debian-devel
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) 4.0.2-12 for i386 is broken. Just building against libc6 2.2.2-2 is
> insufficient to avoid the gcc/binutils problem that BenC warned about in
> debian-devel.
Installing gcc 2.95.3-9 makes things suitable for building on i386
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
> 2) There is a problem with app-defaults migration. Packages that ship
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults, *but no longer exist* create a file
> overlap. So far I know of only one package fitting that description: xmh
> (part of XFree86 3.3.6).
I had
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
> 2) There is a problem with app-defaults migration. Packages that ship
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults, *but no longer exist* create a file
> overlap. So far I know of only one package fitting that description: xmh
> (part of XFree86 3.3.6).
I ha
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:23:32PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > So, alpha, arm, and m68k, *stop the presses*. You can build this version,
> > but it's going to be a little buggy, and it will not be the last one you
> > have to build
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So, alpha, arm, and m68k, *stop the presses*. You can build this version,
> but it's going to be a little buggy, and it will not be the last one you
> have to build for a while. There will be a 4.0.2-13.
Already built. I'll remove it from incomin
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:23:32PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > So, alpha, arm, and m68k, *stop the presses*. You can build this version,
> > but it's going to be a little buggy, and it will not be the last one you
> > have to buil
[sorry for the wide CC; please note the Reply-To header]
Predictably, my efforts to create a synchonization point for XFree86 blew
up in my face.
So, alpha, arm, and m68k, *stop the presses*. You can build this version,
but it's going to be a little buggy, and it will not be the last one you
hav
[sorry for the wide CC; please note the Reply-To header]
Predictably, my efforts to create a synchonization point for XFree86 blew
up in my face.
So, alpha, arm, and m68k, *stop the presses*. You can build this version,
but it's going to be a little buggy, and it will not be the last one you
ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
