Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi,
BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe, but NetBSD kernel does not correctly work on sun4m/SMP,
like Linux. Today, no one OS can be used on sun4m/SMP workstations,
and I think that it will be easier to fix linux 2.6 sparc32 kernel
than work on
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi,
BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe, but NetBSD kernel does not correctly work on sun4m/SMP,
like Linux. Today, no one OS can be used on sun4m/SMP workstations,
and I think that it will be easier to fix linux 2.6 sparc32 kernel
than work on
On 29/07/2007 16:19:27, Uwe Hermann wrote:
The Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD port may have a lack of people and support
at the moment (I don't know the current status, though).
However, it seems that the upstream development of the sparc32 code
in the NetBSD kernel is _not_ halted (unlike the
Hi Ludovic,
I wrote:
That's not quite true. Dave Miller is still collecting patches, Mark
Fortescue, Krzysztof Helt and others are producing them. See the respective
posts on [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just that there is no real maintainer
for the port.
[...]
Call me a chicken, but I still
Gianluca Bonetti dixit:
::: NetBSD vs kNetBSD :::
You'll need both. For GNU/kNetBSD, archive qualification and,
eventually, release qualification will be much easier to achieve,
because most of the archive will build unmodified, and the needed
tweaks can be taken from GNU/kFreeBSD. A GNU/NetBSD
Hi,
Ulrich Teichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What we've seen here is classic bitrot, IMHO. Of course, the main Linux
development platform is x86 and quite a lot kernel developers only work
on one platform. This has introduced bugs for all other ports (and will
continue to do so), which I
6 matches
Mail list logo
