Control: tags 635050 pending
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 09:05:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:09:22AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > It's still potentially useful to have u-boot-tools on all architectures.
> > Unfortunately I have not yet figured out how to do this wi
Control: tags 635050 patch
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:09:22AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01:00AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I believe then the sane thing to do is to except amd64 from list of
> > target architectures.
As well as several other architectures...
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01:00AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I believe then the sane thing to do is to except amd64 from list of
> target architectures.
It's still potentially useful to have u-boot-tools on all architectures.
Unfortunately I have not yet figured out how to do this with 201
On 11-07-22 at 08:51am, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:00:08AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > As subject says, the binary u-boot package is virtually empty on
> > amd64.
>
> Yes, there are currently no valid targets for amd64.
I believe then the sane thing to do is to except
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:00:08AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> As subject says, the binary u-boot package is virtually empty on amd64.
Yes, there are currently no valid targets for amd64.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Package: u-boot
Version: 2011.03-6
Severity: important
As subject says, the binary u-boot package is virtually empty on amd64.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.39-2-amd64 (SMP w
6 matches
Mail list logo
