David Wittman wrote:
>> 3.16.0-4 is *not* the kernel version but the ABI name used.
> I feel dumb for asking, but the output of uname is not the exact
> kernel version I'm running? That seems contradictory to everything
> I've learned and read... including what I just read here[1]:
>> Kernel ve
Hi.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:43:17 -0600
David Wittman wrote:
> Danke, Sven.
>
> > 3.16.0-4 is *not* the kernel version but the ABI name used.
>
> I feel dumb for asking, but the output of uname is not the exact kernel
> version I'm running? That seems contradictory to everything I've le
Danke, Sven.
> 3.16.0-4 is *not* the kernel version but the ABI name used.
I feel dumb for asking, but the output of uname is not the exact kernel
version I'm running? That seems contradictory to everything I've learned
and read... including what I just read here[1]:
> Kernel version
> This is t
rant@debian-jessie:~$ dpkg-query --show linux-image-$(uname -r)
> linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 3.16.39-1
> ```
> So what ends up happening is `apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r)`
> pulls the source for the kernel at 3.16.39-1 instead of 3.16.0-4 and
> my module builds with the incorr
me -r)
linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 3.16.39-1
```
So what ends up happening is `apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r)` pulls
the source for the kernel at 3.16.39-1 instead of 3.16.0-4 and my module
builds with the incorrect magicver. I know I can do things to work around
the magicver, but I'm just
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 22:05:08, Joel Roth wrote:
>
> > Are you sure these files are from dbus? I'd rather guess they are from
> > the 'apt' source package. Anyway:
>
> Yes, they are. I'm curious at which step they get generated.
Me too. Care to explain step by step what you did?
Kind regards,
Andr
Hallo,
* Joel Roth [Thu, Nov 20 2014, 10:05:08PM]:
> > > pkgcache.apt
> > > pkgcache.bin
> > > restore
> > > sources.list
> > > sources.list.destdir
> > > srcpkgcache.bin
> >
> Hi Andrei,
>
> > Are you sure these files are from dbus? I'd rather guess they are from
> > the 'apt' sourc
ave "dbus" in the command:
$ apt-get source dbus
All files in .pc directories are generated when the source package is
unpacked. Please read the dpkg-source manpage. You are unpacking the
most common source format "3.0 (quilt)".
> I found the files listed above also need to
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 08:03:58AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
> >
> > However, there are files that apt-get source downloads that
> > are not in the repository. Can someone tell me where they come from?
> > They appear n
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
>
> However, there are files that apt-get source downloads that
> are not in the repository. Can someone tell me where they come from?
> They appear necessary for the package to build.
>
> .pc/
> Package
Hi list,
I'm trying to build the dbus package from source.
I can do it the usual way:
apt-get source
cd dbus-1.18.10
debuild -uc -us -b
However, I would like to use the git repository. apt-get
source helpfully announces:
NOTICE: 'dbus' packaging is maintained in the '
e package (apt-get install
> linux-source), unzip the .tar.bz, apply my patch and run 'make deb-pkg'.
>
> Or I can install the source of the linux-package (apt-get source linux),
> and run 'fakeroot debian/rules source', apply my patch, and run
> 'fakeroot mak
d run 'make deb-pkg'.
Or I can install the source of the linux-package (apt-get source linux),
and run 'fakeroot debian/rules source', apply my patch, and run
'fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_amd64'.
Can someone explain to me which method I should use in
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:46:18 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:23:04PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the
>> result.
>
> Really?
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00310.html
Really.
The post yo
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:23:04PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the
> result.
Really?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00310.html
Seems like problem solved?
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hati
://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present.
I want to do the installs with apt-get source.
How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say?
Does this help?
http://snapshot.debian.org/
Hint: "Usage" section >:-)
I looked at that but the examples of th
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 03:06:25 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:32:49PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up
>> > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO.
>
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:32:49PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up
> > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO.
>
> But you seemed to dissect the issue and found a documentation
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:29:10PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find
>> here. There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and
>> binary files are there, so...
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:29:10PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find here.
> There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and binary
> files are there, so...?
Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:47:18 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:09:20AM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
>> >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:09:20AM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
> >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are
> >> nothing like where the linux source fi
debian kernel
>> >>source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug
>> >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present.
>> >>
>> >>I want to do the installs with apt-get source.
>> >>
>> >&
secutively to see if bug
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present.
>>>
>>> I want to do the installs with apt-get source.
>>>
>>> How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say?
>>
>> Does this help?
>&
secutively to see if bug
> >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present.
> >>
> >>I want to do the installs with apt-get source.
> >>
> >>How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say?
> >
> >Does this help?
installs with apt-get source.
How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say?
Does this help?
http://snapshot.debian.org/
Hint: "Usage" section >:-)
I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are
nothing like where the linux source files
e installs with apt-get source.
>
> How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say?
Does this help?
http://snapshot.debian.org/
Hint: "Usage" section >:-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Hi,
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768
is present.
I want to do the installs with apt-get source.
How does one do this? Specifically
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:04:58AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Rob Owens wrote:
> > When I
> >
> > apt-get source somepackage
> >
> > as a regular user, does the system do a signature check on the source
> > that is downloaded? Where does the signature resi
Rob Owens wrote:
> When I
>
> apt-get source somepackage
>
> as a regular user, does the system do a signature check on the source
> that is downloaded? Where does the signature reside?
Yes; in the .dsc file.
A failure to verify the signature will only result in a warning
When I
apt-get source somepackage
as a regular user, does the system do a signature check on the source
that is downloaded? Where does the signature reside?
Thanks. I can't find this info in any of the man pages.
-Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
ggest debian-keyring. It seems to me that if one runs
> "apt-get source" and debian-keyring is not installed, apt-get
> should issue a warning message that debian-keyring is not installed.
I think this is more for dpkg-dev; that package suggests debian-keyring,
but dpkg-source
On 2010-01-07 at 11:04:18 -0500, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Why do you run apt-get source as root?
I am used to being root when I run apt-get because this is required
when installing a binary package. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly)
that installing a source package also required root privileges.
On 2010-01-07 16:37 +0100, Stephen Powell wrote:
> I am trying to get the source code for a Debian package with
>
> apt-get source xxx
>
> where xxx is the name of the package. The retrieval of the source package
> appears to have been successful, but I get error messages alon
I am trying to get the source code for a Debian package with
apt-get source xxx
where xxx is the name of the package. The retrieval of the source package
appears to have been successful, but I get error messages along the way:
gpg: new configuration file `/root/.gnupg/gpg.conf' create
Hi,
I have found a way to re-create the "official" linux-image*.deb
packages using the apt-get source command [1]:
#!/bin/bash
apt-get source -t unstable linux-image-2.6.24-1-686-bigmem
cd linux-2.6-2.6.24
fakeroot debian/rules debian/build debian/stamps
fakeroot make -f debian
g" release, not from
> > "stable", so I did this:
> >
> > apt-get -t testing source
> >
> > It does not seem to work. Is there a way to do this without temporarily
> > modifying the sources.list in order to get the desired sources?
>
> Try
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 03:10, Pollywog wrote:
>[...]
> I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from
> "stable", so I did this:
>
> apt-get -t testing source
>
> It does not seem to work. Is there a way to do this without temporarily
> modifying the sources.list in order
t -t testing source
>
> It does not seem to work. Is there a way to do this without temporarily
> modifying the sources.list in order to get the desired sources?
Try apt-get source packagename=1.2.3-4 use whatever the version number is for
testing.
Stephen
--
GPG Pubic Key: http
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:10:38PM +, Pollywog wrote:
> I looked in the APT tutorial and also in a book but I could not find an
> answer
> to this problem.
>
> I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from "stable",
> so I did this:
>
> apt-get -t testing source
>
>
I looked in the APT tutorial and also in a book but I could not find an answer
to this problem.
I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from "stable",
so I did this:
apt-get -t testing source
It does not seem to work. Is there a way to do this without temporarily
modi
y best to answer this :-)
First of all, I _never_ use `apt-get -b source `. I am happy
using the pre-built binary packages. I only re-compile Debian packages
when I need to change some build-time configuration options. These are
the steps I follow:
1. `apt-get source ` in an empty directory.
2.
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:13:48AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
1. How do I do the equivalent of the usual gnu ./configure when I
install from source..?
This is all done from inside the debian/rules file. I'd suggest reading
the New Maintainer's Guide for a gentle introdu
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:13:48AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
>1. How do I do the equivalent of the usual gnu ./configure when I
>install from source..?
This is all done from inside the debian/rules file. I'd suggest reading
the New Maintainer's Guide for a gentle introduction to Debian
packaging.
1. How do I do the equivalent of the usual gnu ./configure when I
install from source..?
2. Can I just remove the source tree after having installed the binary
.deb without breaking anything? Or is there a recommended 'debian way'
to clean up?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:05:43 +0200
David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having failed to get apt-build to work, I tried this. I can easily compile
> and
> install stuff that the kde packages will not due to dependency problems
> (around qt3 and kde) and I get the Debian version (versions po
Having failed to get apt-build to work, I tried this. I can easily compile and
install stuff that the kde packages will not due to dependency problems
(around qt3 and kde) and I get the Debian version (versions posted on
kde-apps, sourceforge had unrelated compilation problems!).
A few kudos he
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:41, Daniel Webb wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:38:57PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > If you have deb-src lines pointing at stable and unstable apt-get
> > source will get the latest (ie, unstable) version. Use apt-get source
> > = to get other v
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:38:57PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> If you have deb-src lines pointing at stable and unstable apt-get source
> will get the latest (ie, unstable) version. Use apt-get source
> = to get other versions.
>
> From the apt-get manpage
>
>
Hi
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:43, Daniel Webb wrote:
> I've been using Debian for 5 years, so I thought I understood how package
> priorities work, but apparently I don't. Why is it pulling the packages
> from unstable instead of stable?
>
> $ apt-get source -b fakeroot
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:20:19PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> I can't believe that it would be a problem, as I imagine your
> /etc/apt/preferences would cause an error, but do you have a "stable"
> line in your /etc/apt/sources.list?
>
> all i can say is that's weird
Yes, I regularl
thought I understood how package
priorities work, but apparently I don't. Why is it pulling the packages from
unstable instead of stable?
$ apt-get source -b fakeroot
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Need to get 981kB of source archives.
Get:1 http://ftp3.nrc.ca uns
I've been using Debian for 5 years, so I thought I understood how package
priorities work, but apparently I don't. Why is it pulling the packages from
unstable instead of stable?
$ apt-get source -b fakeroot
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Need to ge
Ok. Thanks!
New doubt: how to see i686 in the package? The "dpkg -I" command don't
show this information.
Regards,
Eriberto
Roberto C. Sanchez escreveu:
Are you saying this because filename ends in _i386.deb? If so, that is
normal. Even the i686 kernel image packages end in that suffix:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:37:08AM -0300, Eriberto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I installed the pentium-builder package and I made the export
> DEBIAN_BUILDARCH=i686. However, after a apt-get build-dep and apt-get source
> -b, the result was a i386 package. Why the result wasn'
Hello,
I installed the pentium-builder package and I made the export
DEBIAN_BUILDARCH=i686. However, after a apt-get build-dep and apt-get
source -b, the result was a i386 package. Why the result wasn't a i686
package? I tested with IPTraf and Postgresql-8.0.
Thanks,
Eriberto
'apt-get source' for me seems to ignore my pinning setup and downloads
newer source than it should. apt-get install/build-dep does not,
however. Is there something I'm doing wrong, or not understanding?
More detail below.
For example, apt-cache policy swf-player shows, as
I was perplexed by getting older source version(s) of file with "apt-get
source gkrellm".
I asked a friend and went through:
I didn't have any pinning, didn't even know how to pin.
However:
zen8100a:/etc/apt# cat apt.conf
APT::Default-Release "woody";
It appears
Mihalis I. Tsoukalos, Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:57:34AM +0300:
> I have successfully downloaded the source for libpcap.
>
> What to do next in order to compile it the Debian way?
>
sudo apt-get build-dep libpcap
apt-get source libpcap --compile
In the best case, that will just work
Dear list,
I have successfully downloaded the source for libpcap.
What to do next in order to compile it the Debian way?
TIA,
Mihalis.
--
:wq
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Travis Crump wrote:
Notice that it only fetched 1628B as opposed to all 39.8kB
[1628B==diff+dsc+1B but that may just be a coincidence]
Not a coincidence. I had compiled it without bumping the version number
so that the dsc and diff were overwritten with local versions that
didn't match the serv
Abdul Latip wrote:
Hi,
Unlike "apt-get install", I guess that "apt-get source"
does not check if the source is already loaded.
It always has for me[or rather it resumes the download and resuming a
100% download is pretty quick. :)]
Random package for which I already
Hi,
Unlike "apt-get install", I guess that "apt-get source"
does not check if the source is already loaded. Therefore,
I would like to add a bash script like:
for xx in "A PACKAGE NAME LIST"
do
[ -f ${xx}*.tar.gz ] || apt-get -m source $xx
done
Unfortun
* Jesse Meyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030602 22:27]:
> Well, the problem is, I need the pcmcia_cs.o module for my laptop
> NIC. The only package that includes that is the
> pcmcia-modules-2.4.18-bf2.4 package, which, as its name implies,
> requires the 2.4.18-bf2.4 kernel.
>
> Unfortunately, the b
Ben Kal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One more tip for dealing with Debian packages of custom kernels and
> other home-brewn 'Debianized' software: it is possible to maintain a
> local archive of Debian packages, on your hard disk, from which you
> can install packages with apt-get just like from
On 2 Jun 2003 Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003, Kevin McKinley wrote:
>
> That being said, then how do you then remake the kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4
> package? I could just replace the kernel image without telling dpkg, but
> that doesn't seem to be a good idea. Lif
On Mon, 02 Jun 2003, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:57:01 -0500
> Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That being said, then how do you then remake the
> > kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 package? I could just replace the kernel
> > image without telling dpkg, but that doesn't
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:57:01 -0500
Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being said, then how do you then remake the kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4
> package? I could just replace the kernel image without telling dpkg, but
> that doesn't seem to be a good idea. Life's easier when I don't > go
f kernel, and keep
> the 2.4bf pcmcia
> > > packages unchanged. When I try an 'apt-get
> source
> > > kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4' I do not seem to get
> the kernel source, only
> > > a 24kB file.
> > >
> > > So, how can I get the full
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:57:01 -0500
Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That being said, then how do you then remake the
> kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 package? I could just replace the kernel
> image without telling dpkg, but that doesn't seem to be a good idea.
> Life's easier when I don't g
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003, Kevin McKinley wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:59:02 -0500
> Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to recompile the 2.4bf kernel, and keep the 2.4bf pcmcia
> > packages unchanged. When I try an 'apt-
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:59:02 -0500
Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to recompile the 2.4bf kernel, and keep the 2.4bf pcmcia
> packages unchanged. When I try an 'apt-get source
> kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4' I do not seem to get the ker
Hello,
I want to recompile the 2.4bf kernel, and keep the 2.4bf pcmcia
packages unchanged. When I try an 'apt-get source
kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4' I do not seem to get the kernel source, only
a 24kB file.
So, how can I get the full kernel source to remake the bf2.4 package?
(
This one time, at band camp, Kenneth Stephen said:
> Hi,
>
> Here is what I get when using apt-get source :
>
> ebiz:/etc/apt# man apt-get
> Reformatting apt-get(8), please wait...
> ebiz:/etc/apt# apt-get source krb5-telnetd --download-only
> Reading Package
Hi,
Here is what I get when using apt-get source :
ebiz:/etc/apt# man apt-get
Reformatting apt-get(8), please wait...
ebiz:/etc/apt# apt-get source krb5-telnetd --download-only
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Could not open file
/var/lib/apt/lists
Sent: den 18 september 2002 09:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: apt-get source postgres
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:49, Jonas Persson wrote:
> Hi everyone, i have a problem finding postgresql 7.1.3 source as debian package. I
>looked in potato
> but there the version is 6.5.4. The rea
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:49, Jonas Persson wrote:
> Hi everyone, i have a problem finding postgresql 7.1.3 source as debian package. I
>looked in potato
> but there the version is 6.5.4. The reason why i want an older version is that the
>application i want to
> run against postgresql uses fea
Hi everyone, i have a problem finding postgresql 7.1.3 source as debian package. I
looked in potato
but there the version is 6.5.4. The reason why i want an older version is that the
application i want to
run against postgresql uses features which is changed in 7.2 and will make the
applicati
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 00:12, nate wrote:
> of course most things that i do apt-get source i also mark them as
> HOLD in the dpkg database so my next upgrade doesn't overwrite my
> custom packages. i do this by doing:
>
> dpkg --get-selections >selections
> (edit selec
stem. Now I have seen how you can use
> |
> |apt-get source
> |
> | and then compile it own your own machine. Now what I was wondering,
> | is there an advantage to doing this? If so, what is it, and how much
> | of an advantage is it.
>
> There might be an advantag
> Hello,
>
> I have a question. I normally use
>
> apt-get install
>
> to install any package on my system. Now I have seen how you can use
>
> apt-get source
>
> and then compile it own your own machine. Now what I was wondering, is
> there an advanta
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 01:11:52PM -0400, Erik Mathisen wrote:
| Hello,
|
| I have a question. I normally use
|
| apt-get install
|
| to install any package on my system. Now I have seen how you can use
|
|apt-get source
|
| and then compile it own your own machine. Now what I
Hello,
I have a question. I normally use
apt-get install
to install any package on my system. Now I have seen how you can use
apt-get source
and then compile it own your own machine. Now what I was wondering,
is there an advantage to doing this? If so, what is it, and how much
of
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:40:20PM -0500, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> I don't know, but I would very much like to recompile glibc, the Xlib, and
> the gnome libraries to be optimized for the different processors I'm
> running.
I'd be careful using any optimisations on these fairly critical
libr
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:01:22AM -0400, Nathan Weston wrote:
| On Tuesday 14 May 2002 01:50 am, dman wrote:
| > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:36:04PM -0400, Nathan Weston wrote:
[...]
| > | Can I specify a default CFLAGS to use?
| >
| > Sure :
| >
| > $ apt-get source foo
|
On Monday 13 May 2002 11:40 pm, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> I don't know, but I would very much like to recompile glibc, the Xlib, and
> the gnome libraries to be optimized for the different processors I'm
> running.
>
> Recompiling the kernel to optimize for a particular processor is a
> signific
On Tuesday 14 May 2002 01:50 am, dman wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:36:04PM -0400, Nathan Weston wrote:
> | Is there a way to compile with different options, CFLAGS, etc, when using
> | apt-get source?
>
> Not that I know of -- apt-get doesn't actually do compilation, tha
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:36:04PM -0400, Nathan Weston wrote:
| Is there a way to compile with different options, CFLAGS, etc, when using
| apt-get source?
Not that I know of -- apt-get doesn't actually do compilation, that's
why!
| Can I specify a default CFLAGS to use?
Sure :
I don't know, but I would very much like to recompile glibc, the Xlib, and the
gnome libraries to be optimized for the different processors I'm running.
Recompiling the kernel to optimize for a particular processor is a significant
performance boost but it would help to optimize the libraries t
Is there a way to compile with different options, CFLAGS, etc, when using
apt-get source?
Can I specify a default CFLAGS to use?
Thanks,
Nathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Mar 2002 23:46:11 -0500
James Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I install via apt-get source and compile the package, then
> install. apt-get -u upgrade wants to replace my compiled version with
> the binary package from debian servers, of the same version. Ever tim
bian
version is available. You can still get the latest source version with apt-
get source.
-Paul
> When I install via apt-get source and compile the package, then
> install. apt-get -u upgrade wants to replace my compiled version with
> the binary package from debian servers, of the same
When I install via apt-get source and compile the package, then
install. apt-get -u upgrade wants to replace my compiled version with
the binary package from debian servers, of the same version. Ever time
I install a package from apt-get source, apt-get wants to replace it
with the binary
Hello,
Could someone please point me to the documentation for building debs from
source *WITH* changes to the source (via the configure script)?
I'm trying to compile PostgreSQL from source, after having done an "apt-get
source postgresql". After the download, dpkg-source was au
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current
> directory. When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing
> "/root/qt/debian/objprelink" and it doesn't get auto-configured to match
> the p
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:18:14PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current directory.
> When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing "/root/qt/debian/objprelink"
> and it doesn't get auto-configured
Looks like a wasted effort right now. The version in the source
tree is older than the one I need also.
Thus spake Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:18:14PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> > I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in m
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:18:14PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current
> directory. When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing
> "/root/qt/debian/objprelink" and it doesn't get auto-configured to
&g
I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current directory.
When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing "/root/qt/debian/objprelink"
and it doesn't get auto-configured to match the paths etc of my pre-packaged
version.
Thus spake brian r ([EMAIL PROTECTE
Refer to man page 'apt-get' and edit /etc/apt/sources.list.
Sequence is something like:
apt-get update # update package list
apt-get source # with the appropiate --compile option
'install-somehow' # obviously, I am unclear here.
However, it says manpage of apt-get sa
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
