Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
* Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030305 07:30]: uniprocessor sun4m works on some patched 2.4 kernels Do you have some hints, which patches and what to be careful about? I've severel sparcstation10 available and plan[1] to test the new installer on them (network-booting is so nice with them). And from people of the local LUG noone seems yet to have succeded running 2.4 on one of them. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link [1] Am still missing a bit of infrastructure, so it will still take some time, though I hope to get there soon. -- The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sparc32 2.4 kernel (was Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030305 07:30]: uniprocessor sun4m works on some patched 2.4 kernels Do you have some hints, which patches and what to be careful about? I've severel sparcstation10 available and plan[1] to test the new installer on them (network-booting is so nice with them). And from people of the local LUG noone seems yet to have succeded running 2.4 on one of them. I'm still recomending asking on the debian-sparc list, since I never have tried linux on a sparc myself. (I've got a sparcstation LX (sun4m) and sparcstation 2 (sun4c) that I'll play with if I find the time.) The following was sent there: (There are also sucess reports) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Radez) Subject: sparc32 2.4.21-pre5 kernel debs To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:45:54 GMT I'm currently uploading 2.4.21-pre5 kernel debs for sparc32, UP and SMP, to http://osinvestor.com/sparc/debs/ that will hopefully boot this time on SMP. If they're still too big I'll try to modularize more stuff, in which case more people will likely need an initrd. pre5 UP boots fine here, with a patch that I mailed off to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I make no promises on machines out of my control though. Regards, Rob Radez -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html Text is a way we cheat time. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32? sparc32 isn't a single kernel architecture. From what I've seen on the debian-sparc mailing list: uniprocessor sun4m works on some patched 2.4 kernels multi-processor sun4m works on fewer patched 2.4 kernels sun4c lacks 2.4 kernel support, will be dropped sun4d ? of less interest than sun4c ? sun4 hasn't been supported recently There are also instruction set differences that have some corrilation with the architecture. (Sparc64 are all sun4u) Please ask on the debian-sparc mailing list if you want accurate information. -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html Text is a way we cheat time. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
* Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030301 22:20]: For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32? Architectures that are still having problems with 2.4 should probably be dropped. Since they aren't likely to work with 2.6 when it is released or any future kernel release. We cannot support old kernels indefinitely. How do you define problems? In the local LUG I relatively often hear problems with new kernels or such experimental marked features as devfs. (Very old dual-pentium-boards, or multi-serial cards not running with devfs in some industrial pc with no other way to get a console). Having Linux supporting older hardware was in my eyes always one of its main advantages. I hope this will not change. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
Op za 01-03-2003, om 05:57 schreef Christian T. Steigies: But you are right, we should get 2.4 working instead of hacking devfs into or out of d-i... Sure, but in the mean time we have to make sure there's an installer for m68k that actually works. Else we could just as well shut down all m68k buildd's, as it will not be worth it anymore. -- wouter at grep dot be An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
Op za 01-03-2003, om 00:16 schreef Petter Reinholdtsen: [Wouter Verhelst] As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while DevFS will only be found in 2.4-kernels. It is good to see someone working on the non-i386 ports of d-i. It is really needed. How hard is it to get 2.4 kernels working in m68k? That's a good question. There are actually some 2.4 kernels out there for m68k, but they don't boot with recent glibc implementations. I don't know the technical details about this; what I do know, is that it will be hard for Debian to support 2.4 on m68k anytime soon. Why is it not done yet? It has been a while since 2.4 arrived. Lack of manpower, mainly. Interested kernel hackers are always welcome to join the Linux/m68k effort. And yes, I'm interested, but I'm not skilled enough to hack kernels (or C libraries, for that matter :-) To work around this issue, I've been thinking of emulating DevFS in user space (with some tricks that involve /etc/modules.conf, for those interested). However, as I'm not going to implement every possible piece of hardware 'out there', I'd like to know what hardware debian-installer searches for, and only implement that. This will obviously include hard disks and their partitions, but what more? I believe autopartkit/libpartedq uses /dev/discs/*. I have no idea what the different parts of d-i needs in /dev/. thanks. -- wouter at grep dot be An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
But you are right, we should get 2.4 working instead of hacking devfs into or out of d-i... Sure, but in the mean time we have to make sure there's an installer for m68k that actually works. Else we could just as well shut down all m68k buildd's, as it will not be worth it anymore. It would be nice to have somewhat working support for 2.2 kernels, for we might be unable to ship woody with decent support for some other arches. For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32? regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be
is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32?
Architectures that are still having problems with 2.4 should probably
be dropped. Since they aren't likely to work with 2.6 when it is released
or any future kernel release. We cannot support old kernels indefinitely.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:00:43AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while DevFS will only be found in 2.4-kernels. [ I don't have any m68k machines ] Can't you apply a devfs patch to a 2.2.x kernel? ftp://ftp.atnf.csiro.au/pub/people/rgooch/linux/kernel-patches/v2.2/ -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This disclaimer is priviledged information and may not be read by anyone except the intended recipient, whoever that is. If you are not the intended recipient and have read this disclaimer, you are naughty and shan't be allowed any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't take your meat? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
[Wouter Verhelst] As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while DevFS will only be found in 2.4-kernels. It is good to see someone working on the non-i386 ports of d-i. It is really needed. How hard is it to get 2.4 kernels working in m68k? Why is it not done yet? It has been a while since 2.4 arrived. To work around this issue, I've been thinking of emulating DevFS in user space (with some tricks that involve /etc/modules.conf, for those interested). However, as I'm not going to implement every possible piece of hardware 'out there', I'd like to know what hardware debian-installer searches for, and only implement that. This will obviously include hard disks and their partitions, but what more? I believe autopartkit/libpartedq uses /dev/discs/*. I have no idea what the different parts of d-i needs in /dev/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:16:09AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Wouter Verhelst] As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while DevFS will only be found in 2.4-kernels. It is good to see someone working on the non-i386 ports of d-i. It is really needed. How hard is it to get 2.4 kernels working in m68k? Why is it not done yet? It has been a while since 2.4 arrived. There are not too many people working on linux-2.4 for m68k. We might be able to get 2.4 kernels build for most supported m68k arches, but my experience on an amiga was, that they are not as stable as 2.2.20 kernels. I last tried with 2.4.18, maybe the situation has improved, or maybe not. We might have enough m68k buildds for the moment, but we do not have enough m68k maintainers that also have time for kernel hacking. And then I don't know of any (working?) atari that we could test new kernel-images on. But you are right, we should get 2.4 working instead of hacking devfs into or out of d-i... any volunteers? Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m68k, debian-installer, and DevFS
Hi As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while DevFS will only be found in 2.4-kernels. To work around this issue, I've been thinking of emulating DevFS in user space (with some tricks that involve /etc/modules.conf, for those interested). However, as I'm not going to implement every possible piece of hardware 'out there', I'd like to know what hardware debian-installer searches for, and only implement that. This will obviously include hard disks and their partitions, but what more? Is there a list available? If not, can one be created? Thanks, -- wouter at grep dot be An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
