Hi, Sven.
On Friday, 25 December 2009 09:53:53 +0100,
Sven Joachim wrote:
> > Sorry to send this message twice, but I thought that for some reason
> > it had not arrived at the list. Although it seems that both messages
> > arrived with a delay of six hours. This can be due to some
> > moderation of the list?
> This list is not moderated, and your messages have a very low
> spamassassin score, so they should have arrived immediately. You can
> look in the "Received:" headers to see where they spent the time.
It seems that the problem was to the return:
Received: from liszt.debian.org (EHLO liszt.debian.org) [82.195.75.100]
by mx0.gmx.net (mx052) with SMTP; 24 Dec 2009 20:10:35 +0100 <------
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 5547A2D0D8E; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:47:49 +0000 (UTC) <------
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5AD2D0D5C
for <lists-debian-user@liszt.debian.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:47:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id 7OfJDoFZMriA for <lists-debian-user@liszt.debian.org>;
Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
Now I'm seeing that the email crosses liszt.debian.org several times,
which draws attention to me.
> >> And why in this case yes we must use these options if running an
> >> amd64 kernel in userland 32 is not necessary to use ARCH=x86_64 in
> >> the invocations of "make" when compiling of the traditional way?
> > Well, thinking a little more about this subject, the cause by which
> > this happens perhaps is that when make-kpkg consults the general
> > architecture of the system, it obtains in (b.1) as in (b.2) that is
> > i386. For that reason in both cases it is necessary to use
> > --cross-compile and --arch.
> >
> > Nevertheless when being used the compilation of the traditional way,
> > this becomes by outside any own control of Debian and the
> > architecture that will be used by default is the one of running
> > kernel.
> >
> > Is correct this asseveration?
> Yes, kernel-package relies on the information dpkg-architecture
> provides whereas the kernel Makefile trusts "uname -m" to determine
> the architecture. On systems with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland
> this gives different information:
>
> ,----
> | % dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH
> | i386
> | % uname -m
> | x86_64
> `----
Thanks to all by the contributions. These were very useful.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Fingerprint: BFB3 08D6 B4D1 31B2 72B9 29CE 6696 BF1B 14E6 1D37
Powered by Debian GNU/Linux Lenny - Linux user #188.598
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature