libc6 and libc5 compat solibs
Hi, I'm maintaining the libcompface packages and I can't get the libc6/5 dependencis right, when I try to compile a progg for libc6 the libc5 version of libcompface gets linkt to, that is the one in /usr/liblibc5-compat dir and not the one in /usr/lib. What am I doing worng? -- --- Name: Hakan Ardo E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.ub2.lu.se/~hakan/sig.html Public Key: Try "finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]" Fingerprint: E9 81 FD 90 53 5C E9 3E 3D ED 57 15 1B 7E 29 F3 Interests: WWW, Programming, 3D graphics Thought for the day: As long as one understands, the spelling does not matter :-) --- pgpMHmrXLP7K7.pgp Description: PGP signature
cpio
The file ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/unstable/binary-i386/admin/cpio_2.4.2-7.deb seems to be missing...
Shared libraries in packages. How?
Hi, I have recently made the package compface (can be found in unstabe) containg the shared library libcompface. Now I am trying to make a package xfaces that uses this library. But I can't get dpkg-shlibdeps working. This is what is says: # dpkg-shlibdeps xfaces dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unknown output from ldd on `xfaces': ` libcompface.so => /usr/lib/libcompface.so' dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared library libXpm (soname 4, path /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4.7, dependency field Depends) dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared library libm (soname 5, path /lib/libm.so.5.0.5, dependency field Depends) What's wrong with my compafe package, and to which packages does the other libs belong, and why can't dpkg-shlibdeps find them? -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITP: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
Hi, the entire gnu develoopnet environment is ported to the avr arcitecture and runs nicely under debian. Currently all that excists as debian packages are a few asmeblers and programmers. I intend to create the following debain packages: avr-binutils avr-gcc avr-libc avr-monitor (code monitor used by gdb) avr-gdb avr-devenviron (contains dependencies on all the packagses you need to get a full featured development evironment for the avr as well as some simple examples and a readme to get started) If anyone knows of a avr simulator freely avalible I'd be most interested. Preferable one that works with gdb... Please CC replays to me. -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan pgpWVs1Vrwt4R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ITP: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 05:07:29PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:04:15PM +0200, Hakan Ardo wrote: > > Hi, > > the entire gnu develoopnet environment is ported to the avr arcitecture and > > runs nicely under debian. Currently all that excists as debian packages are > > a few asmeblers and programmers. I intend to create the following debain > > packages: > > > > avr-binutils > > avr-gcc > > avr-libc > > avr-monitor (code monitor used by gdb) > > avr-gdb > > avr-devenviron (contains dependencies on all the packagses you need to get > > a full featured development evironment for the avr as well > > as some simple examples and a readme to get started) > > Is this based off the actual upstream source, or is it a fork? If the > former, then I suggest coordinating with the relevant maintainers rather > than duplicating source. What versions of these tools are being used? binutils is part of the actual upstream source version 2.10 gcc is distributed as a patch to version 2.95.2 and gdb as a patch to 4.18, the rest is not related to actual gnu sources. I'll contact the binutils maintainer to see if we can coordinate the package, as for the others it seems hard to build from the same code tree as it has to be patched... -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan pgp6APn6mu7Qi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ITP: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 05:44:29PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > > > binutils is part of the actual upstream source version 2.10 gcc is > > distributed as a patch to version 2.95.2 and gdb as a patch to 4.18, the > > rest is not related to actual gnu sources. > > > > Excellent. Then most likely all you need to do is get the target added to > the binutils-multiarch package, and dep on that for the other tools. Maybe, I need the gnu asembler from the binutils package as well and the binutils-mulitarch pkg claims not to contain it, but I'll wait and see what the binutil maintainer has to say... > > > I'll contact the binutils maintainer to see if we can coordinate the > > package, as for the others it seems hard to build from the same code tree as > > it has to be patched... > > I'd email the respective maintainers. They may have some ideas about > that. OK, I'll do that but it seems like the avr to is about to get incoperated with the gnu distributions in future releases, at least of gcc. One solution might be to do separate pkgs for now instead of doing some advanced combination of oure own wait till the combination has been done upstream. > > I assume the libc is not part of glibc at all, so that most likely needs > to be its own package. Correct, it's a separate implementaton of the most basic libc functions. -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan pgphC8gYKIjvl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 07:42:05PM -0300, Frank Smith wrote: > > As part of the Embedded Debian Project (see http://www.emdebian.org) I've > made modifications to the binutils and gcc source packages to support the > building of cross compilation environments. > > Perhaps there is some overlap here? Check out the web site and let me > know how you feel. I'm interested in seeing the Embedded Debian project > support more targets. I'll have a look. Have you talk to the gcc and binutils maintianers about this? I've mailed them now (se the other threads in this mail). -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan pgptQOaHpQEgv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 07:42:05PM -0300, Frank Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > the entire gnu develoopnet environment is ported to the avr > > arcitecture and > > runs nicely under debian. Currently all that excists as debian > > packages are > > a few asmeblers and programmers. I intend to create the following debain > > packages: > > > > avr-binutils > > avr-gcc > > avr-libc > > avr-monitor (code monitor used by gdb) > > avr-gdb > > avr-devenviron (contains dependencies on all the packagses you > > need to get > > a full featured development evironment for the > > avr as well > > as some simple examples and a readme to get started) > > As part of the Embedded Debian Project (see http://www.emdebian.org) I've > made modifications to the binutils and gcc source packages to support the > building of cross compilation environments. > > Perhaps there is some overlap here? Check out the web site and let me > know how you feel. I'm interested in seeing the Embedded Debian project > support more targets. It seems like your version of the binutils and gcc packages with the addition of an avr target is exaktly what I want (I don't suppose that would be very hard, would it?). Why are those not made part of debian as the official debian binutils and gcc packages and we could have all targets of interest built from the same source? After a closer look at the gcc patch it seems that what it does is simply to add a avr target, which means that it should be possible to compile for the other targets even after it is applied. This has to be verified ofcourse. The patch is availible at: http://medo.fov.uni-mb.si/mapp/uTools/avr-gcc/gcc-core-2.95.2-avr-patch-1.1.gz -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan pgpTy2Wt5yKr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X 4 and app-defaults
Hi, Remco van de Meent wrote: > > > Many packages compiled against X3 seem to include this directory in > > > their package. > > > > Yes. They need to move their app-defaults files. > > > > > What should I do? > > > > File bugs against packages that use /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults. > > Whee, (#bugs++)^2.. it seems that these 108 packages have such a > directory: It seems like noone ever sent any bug rapport about this, right? I'm maintaining xfaces and was traking down some cryptic buggrepport resulted from this problem, and I would sure have been assisted by such an repport. Is anyone working on sending those repports? or shall I do it myslef? Thomas? Please CC any reply to me. -- Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan pgpfRuNrSbRCp.pgp Description: PGP signature
s390 buildd?
Hi, 15/12 I released gcc-avr version 1:4.2.2-1, but acording to: http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-avr the s390 buildd has not yet tried to build it. What might be the problem? Thanx. -- Håkan Ardö
Re: Bug#790103: new default build flag from dpkg: -Wdate-time
Hi, the archlinux avr-gcc seams to be a standard unpatched gcc compiled for the avr target. I would prefere to base the main avr-gcc package on the atmel releases as those have historically been of higiher quality for avr usage. That means avr-gcc will be upgraded to the atmel release 3.5.0 based on gcc 4.9.2 soon. Will that help? Otherwise my suggestion would be that we introduce a new package, say avr-gcc5, that we base on the gnu release 5.2.0 and keep avr-gcc following the atmel releases. On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > reassign 790103 gcc-avr 1:4.8.1+Atmel3.4.5-1 > retitle 790103 gcc-avr: base on a newer version of gcc > affects 790103 expeyes > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:35:46AM +0100, Georges Khaznadar wrote: > > > > 3- rebase the package gcc-avr on a newer version of gcc, which may > be a > > > >hard work. Such a work seems to exist, for example at > > > >https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/avr-gcc/ > since > > > >last July > > > > > > This is what should be done, really. > > > > I had a look at this last option, but I miss knowledge to keep on with > > it: as I could guess, the current gcc-avr package is based on a frozen > > archive of gcc-4.8, which is modified by adding subtle modifications. > > Obviously, I can freeze an archive of gcc-5, but I cannot craft the > > modifications to turn it into an efficient compiler for avr. > > I miss those too, fwiw. > > > So I shall reassign bug #790103 to gcc-avr, and keep the suggested link > > to expeyes. > > done. > > > As a matter of fact, I cannot push the severity such a bugreport higher > > than whishlist, as I cannot provide any help about the work to be done. > > This is not what is used to decide the severities :), but still it's a > whishlist bug. > > If this is not fixed in time for the change I'll open another bug > against expeyes to at least disable the flag. > If for some reason (=> allow us to test your package, maybe?) you want > to do it now adding this to d/rules should be sufficient > DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS=reproducible=-timeless > > > Best regards, Georges. > > enjoy! > > -- > regards, > Mattia Rizzolo > > GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. > more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' : > Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` > Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- > -- Håkan Ardö
Re: Bug#790103: new default build flag from dpkg: -Wdate-time
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:26:24PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote: > > That means avr-gcc will be upgraded to the atmel release 3.5.0 based on > gcc > > 4.9.2 soon. > > soon = ? > Within a week or three...
