On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:36:08AM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
> []
> > (I would bet rather on the ctime than on the size _ which looks
> > to me as an almost redundant test _, but evidence for that
> > will disappear after your patch .. (sigh) )
>
> I wonder why
Jean-François Mertens wrote:
[]
> (I would bet rather on the ctime than on the size _ which looks
> to me as an almost redundant test _, but evidence for that
> will disappear after your patch .. (sigh) )
I wonder why none of the people who are having this problem really tried
to get to the bot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:44, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>> I don't know exactly why it's happening, but I have figured out some
>> things. The "file changed as we read it" warning does occur som
On 27 Feb 2007, at 18:44, Daniel Johnson wrote:
> I don't know exactly why it's happening, but I have figured out some
> things. The "file changed as we read it" warning does occur sometimes
> with tar 1.15.1, but it always returned an exit code of 0 in such
> cases. It would return 1 if a fatal
I am also having issues with building gcc:
...
/usr/bin/install -d -m 700 /sw/src/fink.build/root-gcc4-
shlibs-4.1.-20060617/sw/share/doc/gcc4-shlibs
/bin/cp -r gcc/COPYING /sw/src/fink.build/root-gcc4-
shlibs-4.1.-20060617/sw/share/doc/gcc4-shlibs/
/bin/cp -r gcc/COPYING.LIB /sw/src/fin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 26, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 2007, at 03:17, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>>Frankly it is insane that tar hasn't been epoched and regressed
>> back to 1.15.1. No other software distro would allow a single
>> c
On 27 Feb 2007, at 03:17, Jack Howarth wrote:
>Frankly it is insane that tar hasn't been epoched and regressed
> back to 1.15.1. No other software distro would allow a single
> critical package like this to be left broken for so long. If
> we can rationalize leaving our dpkg at such an old ve
Frankly it is insane that tar hasn't been epoched and regressed
back to 1.15.1. No other software distro would allow a single
critical package like this to be left broken for so long. If
we can rationalize leaving our dpkg at such an old version
certainly we can also justify leaving tar at 1.15
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
William Scott wrote:
> Has anyone found the cause or found some sort of work-around for gcc42
> compiling failure? I get this now on every ppc machine I have access
> to, so I can no longer transfer deb files:
>
>
William Scott wrote:
> Has anyone found the cause or found some sort of work-around for
> gcc42 compiling failure? I get this now on every ppc machine I have
> access to, so I can no longer transfer deb files:
>
>
> Writing package script prerm...
> dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221 /sw
Has anyone found the cause or found some sort of work-around for
gcc42 compiling failure? I get this now on every ppc machine I have
access to, so I can no longer transfer deb files:
Writing package script prerm...
dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070221 /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/
binar
11 matches
Mail list logo