gmane.linux.debian.ports.68k archive

407 archived articles, newest first (page 3 of 5). Latest articles →

Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:55:50 +0100
Gerardo Ballabio <[email protected]> • #16615
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:45:30 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16614
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 22:20:19 -0700
Tony Rodriguez <[email protected]> • #16613
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:51:01 +0900
Simon Richter <[email protected]> • #16612
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 17:29:02 -0700
Tony Rodriguez <[email protected]> • #16611
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 01:15:57 +0100
Jan-Daniel Kaplanski <[email protected]> • #16610
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 20:12:08 +0100
Marco d'Itri <[email protected]> • #16609
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 11:22:17 -0700
Tony Rodriguez <[email protected]> • #16608
Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 13:21:29 +0100
Bastian Blank <[email protected]> • #16607
Bug#1111823: dupeguru FTBFS on m68k
Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:47:59 +0200
Stefano Rivera <[email protected]> • #16606
Bug#1117741: python3.14: Please include patch to fix build with GCC 15 on m68k
Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:32:02 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16605
quick question
Thu, 4 Sep 2025 00:57:50 -0700
Miguel Crovari <[email protected]> • #16604
Re: Removing dpkg arch definition for tos-mint?
Wed, 3 Sep 2025 04:49:26 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #16603
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Mon, 1 Sep 2025 09:47:52 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16602
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:07:41 -0500
Rob Landley <[email protected]> • #16601
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Sun, 24 Aug 2025 00:53:05 +0200
Bastian Blank <[email protected]> • #16600
Re: qemu-user security trade-offs by dynamic configuration
Sun, 24 Aug 2025 01:40:08 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #16599
Re: qemu-user security trade-offs by dynamic configuration
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:00:41 +0000
John Scott <[email protected]> • #16598
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 23:09:30 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #16597
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:03:48 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #16596
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:34:04 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #16595
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #16594
Re: qemu-user viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:27:38 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #16593
Re: qemu-user viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 20:17:59 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #16592
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 20:27:20 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #16591
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 19:02:58 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16590
qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 16:19:29 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #16589
Re: [PATCH 1/1] hung_task: fix warnings by enforcing alignment on lock structures
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 13:06:08 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16588
Re: Preliminary results - was: Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:13:32 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16587
Re: Preliminary results - was: Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:34:39 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16586
Re: Preliminary results - was: Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 23 Jun 2025 01:13:08 +0300
Eero Tamminen <[email protected]> • #16585
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:57:48 -0700
Jason Thorpe <[email protected]> • #16584
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:56:59 +1000
Greg Ungerer <[email protected]> • #16583
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:31:58 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16582
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:18:04 +1000
Greg Ungerer <[email protected]> • #16581
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:43 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16580
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:17:39 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16579
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:16:01 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16578
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:59:53 +1000
Greg Ungerer <[email protected]> • #16577
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:57:15 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16576
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:54:08 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16575
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:27:22 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16574
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:21:49 +1000
Greg Ungerer <[email protected]> • #16573
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:51:45 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16572
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:04:01 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16571
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:56:26 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16570
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:49:15 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16569
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:36:52 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16568
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:16:35 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16567
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:15:22 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16566
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 13:50:07 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16565
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Wed, 18 Jun 2025 13:19:01 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16564
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:37:45 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16563
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:21:35 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16562
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:13:30 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16561
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:59:18 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16560
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:48:45 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16559
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:40:45 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16558
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:25:09 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16557
Re: Tuple and changes for m68k with -malign-int
Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:02:16 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16556
Preliminary results - was: Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:39:24 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16555
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:09 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16554
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:44:38 -0700
Jason Thorpe <[email protected]> • #16553
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:43:02 -0700
Jason Thorpe <[email protected]> • #16552
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 14:29:14 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16551
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 14:21:41 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16550
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:54:44 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16549
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:16:36 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16548
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:16:06 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16547
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:10:46 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16546
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:05:21 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16545
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 13:01:58 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16544
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:51:47 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16543
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:07:23 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16542
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:45:22 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16541
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:32:19 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16540
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:26:47 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16539
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:15:50 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16538
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:10:17 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16537
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:07:29 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16536
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:00:05 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16535
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:45:13 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16534
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:32:52 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16533
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:14:49 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16532
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:00:30 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16531
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:39:04 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16530
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:31:30 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16529
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:48:09 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16528
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:42:51 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16527
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:36 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16526
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:33:02 +0200
Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> • #16525
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:32:23 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16524
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sun, 15 Jun 2025 19:30:43 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16523
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:26:22 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #16522
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sun, 15 Jun 2025 10:13:08 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16521
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sun, 15 Jun 2025 10:05:38 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16520
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:42:48 +1000 (AEST)
Finn Thain <[email protected]> • #16519
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:20:37 +0000 (UTC)
John Klos <[email protected]> • #16518
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:39:49 +0300
Eero Tamminen <[email protected]> • #16517
Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
Sat, 14 Jun 2025 09:51:06 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #16516
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.