Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, this part has been rejected upstream, but all other parts, ie
> most of them, have been accepted. So I can't let you say the "patch as
> originally posted was rejected there".
Sorry, maybe you speak a different English from me. The patch as
orig
James Troup wrote:
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well this patch has been merged upstream in November 2005,
Bzzt, no, it wasn't.
~/debian/packages/binutils/binutils-2.17 % grep ld.so bfd/elfcode.h
zsh: exit 1 grep ld.so bfd/elfcode.h
That part of the patch was, as I said
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First it would have been nice to expose your opposition before, that
> would have let us 50+ days to dig into the problem.
Well, it'd be nice if I had a pony too, but I don't.
> Saying "it works on Ubuntu" is not a right answer.
I didn't say it was t
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006, James Troup wrote:
>> > Also Ubuntu *DOES* have this patch. Matthias has added it in version
>> > 2.17-1ubuntu1, and the patch is called
>> > debian/patches/122_x86_64_i386_biarch.dpatch.
>> That's edgy, not dapper.
>
> Your point be
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup wrote:
>> Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> The bug is opened with a patch for a long time, so I plan to do a porter
>>> NMU on friday morning UTC time, unless you oppose and upload a patched
>>> version by yourself.
>>
>> I
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well this patch has been merged upstream in November 2005,
Bzzt, no, it wasn't.
~/debian/packages/binutils/binutils-2.17 % grep ld.so bfd/elfcode.h
zsh: exit 1 grep ld.so bfd/elfcode.h
That part of the patch was, as I said, rejected upstream.
James Troup wrote:
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The bug is opened with a patch for a long time, so I plan to do a porter
NMU on friday morning UTC time, unless you oppose and upload a patched
version by yourself.
I do oppose an NMU as you haven't actually explained why this patc
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006, James Troup wrote:
> > Also Ubuntu *DOES* have this patch. Matthias has added it in version
> > 2.17-1ubuntu1, and the patch is called
> > debian/patches/122_x86_64_i386_biarch.dpatch.
> That's edgy, not dapper.
Your point being? I don't think the patch is less useful becau
James Troup wrote:
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
I don't have an Ubuntu machine so I can't do more work in that
direction. It seems it is the case for you, so I let you propose
another fix for this problem.
Dude, that's not how this works. You want to make a change that
deviat
James Troup wrote:
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First it would have been nice to expose your opposition before, that
would have let us 50+ days to dig into the problem.
Well, it'd be nice if I had a pony too, but I don't.
Saying "it works on Ubuntu" is not a right answer.
I
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 06:14:25PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Also Ubuntu *DOES* have this patch. Matthias has added it in version
> > 2.17-1ubuntu1, and the patch is called
> > debian/patches/122_x86_64_i386_biarch.dpatch.
>
> That's edgy, not da
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also Ubuntu *DOES* have this patch. Matthias has added it in version
> 2.17-1ubuntu1, and the patch is called
> debian/patches/122_x86_64_i386_biarch.dpatch.
That's edgy, not dapper.
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
James Troup wrote:
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also Ubuntu *DOES* have this patch. Matthias has added it in version
2.17-1ubuntu1, and the patch is called
debian/patches/122_x86_64_i386_biarch.dpatch.
That's edgy, not dapper.
But dapper does not have the re-libtoolized versio
James Troup a écrit :
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The bug is opened with a patch for a long time, so I plan to do a porter
NMU on friday morning UTC time, unless you oppose and upload a patched
version by yourself.
I do oppose an NMU as you haven't actually explained why this p
James Troup a écrit :
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The bug is opened with a patch for a long time, so I plan to do a porter
NMU on friday morning UTC time, unless you oppose and upload a patched
version by yourself.
I do oppose an NMU as you haven't actually explained why this p
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The bug is opened with a patch for a long time, so I plan to do a porter
> NMU on friday morning UTC time, unless you oppose and upload a patched
> version by yourself.
I do oppose an NMU as you haven't actually explained why this patch is
necessary.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 369052 serious
Bug#369052: binutils: ld doesn't search libraries in (/usr)/lib32 on amd64
Severity set to `serious' from `important'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system admi
severity 369052 serious
thanks
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 11:43:03PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> severity 369411 serious
> thanks
>
> I am increasing the severity of this bug as it blocks an RC bug on an
> important library (alsa-lib) of the distribution.
oops, I wanted to increase the severity
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 369411 serious
Bug#369411: alsa-lib: FTBFS on AMD64 (32-bit link problems)
Severity set to `serious' from `serious'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syst
severity 369411 serious
thanks
I am increasing the severity of this bug as it blocks an RC bug on an
important library (alsa-lib) of the distribution.
The bug is opened with a patch for a long time, so I plan to do a porter
NMU on friday morning UTC time, unless you oppose and upload a patched
v
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> block 369411 by 369052
Bug#369411: alsa-lib: FTBFS on AMD64 (32-bit link problems)
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Blocking bugs added: 369052
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
block 369411 by 369052
thanks
The bug is actually in the toolchain. Please see bug#369052.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`-people.debian.org/~aur
On Mon, 29 May 2006 the mental interface of
Ray Kohler told:
> Still does not fix it. I noticed that configure is being called with a 64-bit
> target in configure_biarch_stamp, is this a problem?
>
> cd bibuild && CC="gcc -m32" LDFLAGS="-L/lib32" \
> ../configure --prefix=/usr \
>
Still does not fix it. I noticed that configure is being called with a
64-bit target in configure_biarch_stamp, is this a problem?
cd bibuild && CC="gcc -m32" LDFLAGS="-L/lib32" \
../configure --prefix=/usr \
--mandir=\${prefix}/share/man \
--i
On Mon, 29 May 2006 the mental interface of
Ray Kohler told:
> Not effective, no change at all. I also tried this variation, which was not
> any
> better:
Hmm, these where for installing. I introduced LDFLAGS and have no
amd64 handy. Could you please one more try then?
--- rules.orig 2006-05-
Not effective, no change at all. I also tried this variation, which was
not any better:
--- rules.orig 2006-05-29 14:27:04.0 -0400
+++ rules 2006-05-29 14:27:13.0 -0400
@@ -24,10 +24,10 @@
endif
ifneq (,$(findstring /$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)/, /amd64/ppc64/))
bi = 32
-
On Mon, 29 May 2006 the mental interface of
Ray Kohler told:
> Package: alsa-lib
> Version: 1.0.11-6
> Severity: serious
> Justification: no longer builds from source
>
> The build fails when linking one of the 32-bit components. Looks like the
> wrong rpath is being used (/usr/lib32 instead of
Package: alsa-lib
Version: 1.0.11-6
Severity: serious
Justification: no longer builds from source
The build fails when linking one of the 32-bit components. Looks like the wrong
rpath is being used (/usr/lib32 instead of /lib32):
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -m32 -g -Wall -O2 -
28 matches
Mail list logo
