[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [p-a-s/sid] Don't build wvstreams on armel.

Dear wb-team,

first of all a short pre-story. I am running Debian Wheezy on Raspberry
Pi (soft float, armel).  I realized, that there are no wvdial available.
It is a little frustrating, because this tool is one of the most
convenient for setting up an internet connection from command line
through USB-modem (for me Raspberry works like a little server, so no
GUI, no nm-applet).

Wvdial cannot be built for armel, because wvstreams is not available for
this platform (#521473) due to some problems in the past. So I decided
to build packages of wvstreams and wvdial locally. After that wvdial was
installed from those debs and runs just fine!

So, I would like to ask wb-team to enable wvstreams for armel as, it
seems, the problem with getcontext() is not relevant any more. I think
many raspberry-users will be happy to get wvdial from official

Thank you,


Quoted from http://lists.debian.org/debian-wb-team/2010/07/msg00006.html

> It seems getcontext() doesn't work, see #521473
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
> ---
>  Packages-arch-specific |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/Packages-arch-specific b/Packages-arch-specific
> index 3248bad..5b5f275 100644
> --- a/Packages-arch-specific
> +++ b/Packages-arch-specific
> @@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ welcome2l: alpha amd64 i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386	      # requires V
>  %wine-unstable: i386 amd64 powerpc sparc kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 lpia hurd-i386    # Hardcoded i386 assembler
>  wmacpi: i386 amd64						      # i386 specific
>  wmbatppc: powerpc						      # powerpc battery monitor
> +%wvstreams: !armel 					# no working getcontext()
>  %x86info: i386 amd64 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64		      # i386 CPU info prog
>  %xf86-video-glamo: amd64 armel i386				      # chipset specific
>  %xf86-video-omapfb: armel					      # chipset specific
> -- 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: