gmane.linux.debian.ports.superh archive

390 archived articles, newest first (page 2 of 4). Latest articles →

Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:48:20 +0100
Marc Haber <[email protected]> • #2697
Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:32:36 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2696
Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:30:57 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2695
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:15:37 +0100
Marc Haber <[email protected]> • #2694
Re: Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:07:07 +0100
Marc Haber <[email protected]> • #2693
Re: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 09:39:44 +0100
[email protected] • #2692
Planned obsolescence ? (was: Re: Architecture baseline for Forky)
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 09:59:11 +0100
Romain Dolbeau <[email protected]> • #2691
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:06:25 +0100
Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]> • #2690
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 09:18:38 +0200
Sicelo <[email protected]> • #2689
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 23:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
John Klos <[email protected]> • #2688
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 17:38:57 -0400
Milan Kupcevic <[email protected]> • #2687
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 15:25:30 -0500
Rob Landley <[email protected]> • #2686
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 15:13:45 -0500
Rob Landley <[email protected]> • #2685
Bug#1119146: gcc-15: Please add two more object files to comparision ignore list on sh4
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:59:19 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2684
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:00:11 +0530
kiruthikaanbusuresh <[email protected]> • #2683
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 11:20:29 +0100
Marcin Juszkiewicz <[email protected]> • #2682
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 11:20:06 +0100
Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> • #2681
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:33:28 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2680
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:55:50 +0100
Gerardo Ballabio <[email protected]> • #2679
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:45:30 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> • #2678
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 22:20:19 -0700
Tony Rodriguez <[email protected]> • #2677
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:51:01 +0900
Simon Richter <[email protected]> • #2676
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 17:29:02 -0700
Tony Rodriguez <[email protected]> • #2675
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Mon, 27 Oct 2025 01:15:57 +0100
Jan-Daniel Kaplanski <[email protected]> • #2674
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 20:12:08 +0100
Marco d'Itri <[email protected]> • #2673
Re: Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 11:22:17 -0700
Tony Rodriguez <[email protected]> • #2672
Architecture baseline for Forky
Sun, 26 Oct 2025 13:21:29 +0100
Bastian Blank <[email protected]> • #2671
Help wanted debugging build failure
Sat, 04 Oct 2025 00:23:36 +0200
Matthias Geiger <[email protected]> • #2670
Re: Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sun, 28 Sep 2025 10:12:28 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2669
Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sun, 28 Sep 2025 09:37:26 +0200
Drew Parsons <[email protected]> • #2668
Re: Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sun, 28 Sep 2025 08:22:18 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2667
Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sun, 28 Sep 2025 00:21:49 +0200
Drew Parsons <[email protected]> • #2666
Re: Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:34:16 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2665
Re: Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:30:35 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2664
Bug#1116453: mpi4py: FTBFS on sh4: too large for field of 2 bytes
Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:23:19 +0200
Drew Parsons <[email protected]> • #2663
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]> • #2662
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:12:47 -0500
Rob Landley <[email protected]> • #2661
Re: qemu-user viability (was Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 5983-1] qemu security update)
Mon, 25 Aug 2025 11:05:32 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2660
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]> • #2659
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]> • #2658
Re: qemu-user security trade-offs by dynamic configuration
Sun, 24 Aug 2025 01:40:08 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #2657
Re: qemu-user security trade-offs by dynamic configuration
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:00:41 +0000
John Scott <[email protected]> • #2656
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 23:09:30 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #2655
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:03:48 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #2654
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 22:34:04 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #2653
Re: qemu-user lost its entire viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #2652
Re: qemu-user viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:27:38 +0300
Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> • #2651
Re: qemu-user viability
Sat, 23 Aug 2025 20:17:59 +0200 (CEST)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #2650
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]> • #2649
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]> • #2648
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]> • #2647
Bug#1111616: libuv1: Please include patch to disable io_uring on sh4
Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:40:10 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2646
Bug#1109115: gcc-15: Please add patch to fix NaN signalling bit and propagation rules on sh4
Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:10:33 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2645
Bug#1108261: gcc-15: Please enable algol on sh4
Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:54:41 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2644
Re: Bug#1108151: gcc-15: FTBFS on targets where algol is disabled
Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:52:35 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2643
Re: Bug#1108151: gcc-15: FTBFS on targets where algol is disabled
Sat, 21 Jun 2025 20:15:07 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2642
Bug#1108151: gcc-15: FTBFS on targets where algol is disabled
Sat, 21 Jun 2025 18:36:41 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2641
Re: Bug#1104080: linux: Please build with CONFIG_KERNEL_GZIP=y instead of CONFIG_KERNEL_XZ=y on sh4
Fri, 25 Apr 2025 22:43:51 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2640
Re: Bug#1104080: linux: Please build with CONFIG_KERNEL_GZIP=y instead of CONFIG_KERNEL_XZ=y on sh4
Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:27:20 -0500
Rob Landley <[email protected]> • #2639
Bug#1104080: linux: Please build with CONFIG_KERNEL_GZIP=y instead of CONFIG_KERNEL_XZ=y on sh4
Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:38:14 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2638
Re: Bug#1103627: openjdk-20: Remove from Debian?
Thu, 24 Apr 2025 03:40:11 +0200
"Matthias Klose (Ubuntu)" <[email protected]> • #2637
boost1.88 also ftbfs on alpha, hppa, m68k, sh4.
Sun, 6 Apr 2025 11:05:53 +0200
Matthias Klose <[email protected]> • #2636
Bug#1102196: boost1.88 unknown architectures
Sun, 6 Apr 2025 11:02:39 +0200
Matthias Klose <[email protected]> • #2635
Bug#1102068: libfabric: FTBFS on 32-bit arches: ofi_cma.h: error: passing argument 2 of 'ofi_consume_iov' from incompatible pointer type
Fri, 04 Apr 2025 15:07:42 +0200
Drew Parsons <[email protected]> • #2634
Re: Packages no longer built on 32 bit: libisal, python-isal, fastp
Tue, 18 Mar 2025 07:26:47 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2633
Packages no longer built on 32 bit: libisal, python-isal, fastp
Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:45:52 +0100
Mattias Ellert <[email protected]> • #2632
Bug#1098511: RM: jnettop [armel armhf i386 mipsel] -- ROM; Does not build on (most) 32 bit architectures
Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:04:25 +0100
Andreas Tille <[email protected]> • #2631
Bug#1098331: RM: genwqe-user [armel armhf i386 mipsel] -- ROM; Build issues on 32 bit architectures
Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:12:24 +0100
Andreas Tille <[email protected]> • #2630
Bug#1088935: libseccomp: Please package git snapshot for experimental
Tue, 03 Dec 2024 09:47:22 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2629
Re: Bug#1087923: python3.13: Workaround for the sh4 FTBFS and related issues
Wed, 20 Nov 2024 11:32:40 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2628
Bug#1087923: python3.13: Workaround for the sh4 FTBFS and related issues
Wed, 20 Nov 2024 11:48:33 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> • #2627
Re: Bug#1087824: openal-soft: FTBFS on armel: static assertion failed: std::atomic<std::chrono::nanoseconds>::is_always_lock_free
Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:24:22 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2626
Re: Bug#1087824: openal-soft: FTBFS on armel: static assertion failed: std::atomic<std::chrono::nanoseconds>::is_always_lock_free
Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:47:52 +0000
Simon McVittie <[email protected]> • #2625
Bug#1087662: mypy: Please drop python3-orjson B-D on non-Rust targets
Sat, 16 Nov 2024 22:38:15 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2624
Bug#1087570: python3.13: Build compiler is hard-encoded into Python configuration
Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:35:24 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2623
Bug#1086686: uhd: Please build with -g1 on sh4
Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:31:19 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2622
Bug#1086221: openjdk-17: Please disable dtrace on sh4
Tue, 29 Oct 2024 07:59:14 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2621
Bug#1082305: webkit2gtk: Please remove compiler overrides for sh4
Thu, 19 Sep 2024 21:24:51 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2620
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sun, 15 Sep 2024 18:25:15 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2619
GCC SH LRA - was: Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:09:52 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2618
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:00:22 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2617
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sat, 14 Sep 2024 20:25:56 -0500
Rob Landley <[email protected]> • #2616
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sun, 15 Sep 2024 00:10:55 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2615
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Fri, 13 Sep 2024 17:59:09 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2614
Re: Bug#1066996: python-greenlet: Please add patch to support sh4
Fri, 13 Sep 2024 17:44:18 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2613
Re: Bug#1081515: gtk4: FTBFS with weston 14: many tests fail with --setup=wayland: Failed to open display
Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:59:26 +0100
Simon McVittie <[email protected]> • #2612
Bug#1081515: gtk4: FTBFS on -ports architectures: many tests fail with --setup=wayland: Failed to open display
Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:48:21 +0100
Simon McVittie <[email protected]> • #2611
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:14:24 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2610
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:55:56 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2609
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Wed, 11 Sep 2024 12:24:40 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2608
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:43:23 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2607
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:28:59 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2606
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:16:45 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2605
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Tue, 23 Jul 2024 14:57:46 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2604
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:16:36 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2603
Re: Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:48:17 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2602
Is the sh7785lcr kernel still useful?
Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:11:09 +0200
Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> • #2601
Re: Bug#1057050 closed by Debian FTP Masters <[email protected]> (reply to Patrick Franz <[email protected]>) (Bug#1057050: fixed in qt6-multimedia 6.6.1-1)
Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:31:56 +0200
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2600
Bug#1067026: graphviz: please build without librsvg except on rust platforms
Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:15:48 +0000 (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> • #2599
Bug#1066996: python-greenlet: Please add patch to support sh4
Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:29:03 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]> • #2598
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.