Sorry for late reply.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that there is 200bytes or so of m68k asm, most of them A-trap
calls to the Mac OS rom, concerned. I doubt you have much chance of
getting anything but a 100% identical code, whatever the way you go at
Ryan Underwood wrote:
Sorry for late reply.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that there is 200bytes or so of m68k asm, most of them A-trap
calls to the Mac OS rom, concerned. I doubt you have much chance of
getting anything but a 100% identical code,
I just had an interesting conversation with an Apple developer
(Apple employee) regarding the legal status of the boot sector for
oldworld Macs.
He pointed out that Darwin runs (and boots) on (at least) the beige
G3, and that's oldworld. I don't know anything about Darwin except
that it's
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:06:05AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
I just had an interesting conversation with an Apple developer
(Apple employee) regarding the legal status of the boot sector for
oldworld Macs.
He pointed out that Darwin runs (and boots) on (at least) the beige
G3, and
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 08:15:41PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mar 30, 2004, at 01:20, Sven Luther wrote:
I have a fear suspision that this may be more related to newworld, than
the oldworld stuff needed for miboot, which may probably be varying
between the different models we may
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 08:37:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:06:05AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
I just had an interesting conversation with an Apple developer
(Apple employee) regarding the legal status of the boot sector for
oldworld Macs.
He pointed out
On Mar 28, 2004, at 18:52, Henning Makholm wrote:
Huh? Is the bootsector use written in a kind of machine language that
the regular as(1) for the architecture does not support? I thought
that i386 was the only platform with *that* problem.
Actually, probably yes. It's probably in m68k
On Mar 30, 2004, at 01:20, Sven Luther wrote:
I have a fear suspision that this may be more related to newworld, than
the oldworld stuff needed for miboot, which may probably be varying
between the different models we may need to support.
gasp That's the boot block people are arguing about?
On Mar 30, 2004, at 02:03, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that there is 200bytes or so of m68k asm, most of them A-trap
calls to the Mac OS rom, concerned. I doubt you have much chance of
getting anything but a 100% identical code, whatever the way you go at
generating it.
That is a good
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
to reverse engineer anything,
If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
engineering, then we do need permission from the
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
licenses it's under. The MIT/X11 license is non-exclusive.
Well, i ask, because
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
Mac68K hackers.
Well,
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:20:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
licenses it's
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:16:00AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
2-clause BSD, as used by the NetBSD Foundation, would be good, too.
Er. Be careful with this statement. The Foundation's policy has varied
between at least (that I
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
Mac68K hackers.
Well, actually, they have been. It is true that Apple has long refused
to give
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:24:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:06:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh ? If it would be licenced under the MIT/X11 licence, there is no
need for the source code for us to distribute it ?
I was figuring we'd just disassemble it and
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 02:57, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
Mac68K hackers.
Well, actually, they
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:14:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:00:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the US are mostly the most restrictive (unreasonable) juridiction
on this kind of issues, so ...
That's not my experience. The U.S. is very aggressive about
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hacker #2 affirms that he has never looked at the existing boot
sector, and will not do so in the
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:40:33PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
to reverse engineer anything,
If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:56:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:26:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
You don't need permission to reverse-engineer anything.
If we're going to talk to Apple, we should ask them to release the boot
sector and anything else we need
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:15:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hacker #2 affirms that he has
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:17:42AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:56:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:26:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
You don't need permission to reverse-engineer anything.
If we're going to talk to Apple, we
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright,
and the reverse-engineering follows it tightly enough that the result
is a derivate of the original thing,
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:40:33PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It's not the reverse engineering that needs permission; it's
the distribute derived code.
If it's independently created, it's not derived.
It's not, in the scenario I am talking
Henning Makholm wrote:
I don't think your understanding of reverse-engineering is applicable in
the U.S.
I thin you don't understand which kind of reverse engineering I'm
talking about. I'm afraid I am not able to be any clearer without
repeating myself.
Read my lips: I am *not* talking
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright,
and the reverse-engineering follows it
Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thin you don't understand which kind of reverse engineering I'm
talking about. I'm afraid I am not able to be any clearer without
repeating myself.
Um, sorry for temporarily misplacing my temper here. I see now that I
have indeed expressed myself
Scripsit Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
Read my lips: I am *not* talking about a *functionally* identical
result or clean rooms. I am talking about a deliberate (and quick)
reconstruction of assembler source for the excat bits that Apple has a
copyright on.
How
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the code is as small and simple as described, clean-room
implementation should take about as much time as getting a reply from
Apple
The problem with clean-room implementations is not so much producing
them as debugging and
Scripsit Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
The problem with clean-room implementations is not so much producing
them as debugging and testing them enough to be reasonably sure that
they will work in *all* computers that were built to accept the
original. If we could
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:00:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that it is very probable that Apple will probably in this case not
assert copyright on this bit of obsolet code.
That's not the way I'd bet. U.S. corporations tend to jealously guard
everything they possibly can, and grasp for
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:06:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh ? If it would be licenced under the MIT/X11 licence, there is no
need for the source code for us to distribute it ?
I was figuring we'd just disassemble it and call that the source code.
As long as that's true in practice for us,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:29:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Um, sorry for temporarily misplacing my temper here. I see now that I
have indeed expressed myself ambguously. I originally wrote something
like
Before we begin a clean-room reimplementation, we should ask
Apple for
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Huh? Is the bootsector use written in a kind of machine language that
the regular as(1) for the architecture does not
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Huh? Is the bootsector use written in a kind of machine language that
the regular as(1) for the architecture does not
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 07:27:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hacker #2 affirms that he has never looked at the existing boot
sector, and will not do so in the future. He or she understands MacOS
well enough to know how to
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit
permission to reverse-engineer the boot-block code
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
2) a small C program or shell script which generate said 1K boot
sector
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:06:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit
permission to reverse-engineer the boot-block code
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes, of course. My point was, I think, that it may tactically wise to
mention the reverse-engineering in the initial request. If the code is
really about 20 years old, it is quite possible that nobody at Apple
now knows where to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:36:20AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, that's somewhat more of an issue. I'd expect amiboot to be
buildable without excessive
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, that's somewhat more of an issue. I'd expect amiboot to be
buildable without excessive effort, although the Amiga includes aren't
Free. We can't really ship
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:26:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:36:20AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, that's somewhat more of an issue. I'd expect
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:33:04PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib, and try to find a better solution for next
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib, and try to find a better solution for next
releases.
This is the first I've heard of this. Has the
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
to reverse engineer anything,
If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
engineering, then we do need permission from the original copyright
holder. It's
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:31PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:33:04PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Google macintosh boot block turns up official Apple information that
seems like it might be what you're looking for.
I have a fear suspision that this may be more related to newworld,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:01:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Google macintosh boot block turns up official Apple information
that seems like it might be what you're looking for.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:01:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Google macintosh boot block turns up official Apple information that
seems like it might be what you're looking for.
On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:01:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Google macintosh boot block turns up official Apple
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:31PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:33:04PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
to reverse engineer anything,
If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
engineering, then we do need
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not the reverse engineering that needs permission; it's the
distribute derived code.
The spec has been reverse engineered. The code is then created from
the spec. That seems to break the copyright
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have not seen the code, so if someone describe this in detail to me, I
can then write a free reimplementation.
Now, we probably don't have the toolchain to do this, and a full cross
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 07:00:06PM -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Rick wrote:
Now the part of debian-installer that died on me last night has an
easy fix: Simply do not install any boot loader at all for that
subarchitecture.
Rick, Quik can easily be used to
I'm sorry. I don't have the skills in assembler language to help
with this phase. However, I'll happily test things on my farm of
old Macs of various flavors.
For what it's worth, since MacOS7.6 and (I think) 8.6 boot on M68k
Macs, the boot sector is very likely to be in M68k machine
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 07:27:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib, and try to find a better solution for next
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:16:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
2) a small file, the boot1 macos ressource, a 1K boot-sector to be
copied to the floppy boot sector, is taken from the mac os system
file. This is non-free, binary only, altough, well, the file in
question only contains some
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hacker #2 affirms that he has never looked at the existing boot
sector, and will not do so in the future. He or she understands MacOS
well enough to know how to hand-code 1kB worth of assembly (or
possibly compilable C code)
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Huh? Is the bootsector use written in a kind of machine language that
the regular as(1) for the architecture does not support? I thought
that i386 was the only platform with *that*
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit
permission to reverse-engineer the boot-block code and distribute the
reverse-engineered source under a free license.
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented.
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit
permission to reverse-engineer the boot-block code and distribute the
reverse-engineered
Scripsit Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit
permission to reverse-engineer the boot-block code and distribute the
reverse-engineered source under a free license.
If you're going to ask apple for
Hello,
I have been trying, with help from Jeremie Koenig, to get
debian-installer to work on oldworld powermacs, with the help of miboot
using boot floppies. Everything is ready for it, except one package
which is not yet in the archive, and which proved to be legally
nightmarish, so i have some
Maybe we could get the boot-sector code declared OK to use by Apple?
It would be a hack the system kind of thing, but I suppose
technically they wouldn't have to release the copyright on the
source code for the boot sector, just the derived sequence of
binary bits.
Indeed, Apple may have
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:33:29AM -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
Maybe we could get the boot-sector code declared OK to use by Apple?
Yeah, altough to go in main, it needs to be modifiable also. That said,
i have some doubts about the value of a modification of such a boot
sector, especially since
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:16:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The problematic file comes in a mac .sit format, is claimed to be GPL by
the author, and include the source in the above mentioned .sit (no idea
though, since i have no mac to look at them). There are various problems
though :
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:08:20PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:16:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The problematic file comes in a mac .sit format, is claimed to be GPL by
the author, and include the source in the above mentioned .sit (no idea
though, since i have
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, this pose the problem of various bootloaders for other, especially
older hardware. I know that at least the amiga/m68k and amiga/powerpc
variant depend on the amiboot/apusboot bootloader, which altough GPLed,
can only be built with the free gcc toolchain on amiga OS,
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:48:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, this pose the problem of various bootloaders for other, especially
older hardware. I know that at least the amiga/m68k and amiga/powerpc
variant depend on the amiboot/apusboot bootloader, which altough
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:08:20PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:16:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
= would mean contrib probably, but debian-installer is in main.
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib,
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:24:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:08:20PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:16:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
= would mean contrib probably, but debian-installer is in main.
The plan was to request a
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib, and try to find a better solution for next
releases.
This is the first I've heard of this. Has the sarge-ignore status of the
GFDL docs really created such a slippery
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib, and try to find a better solution for next
releases.
This is the first I've heard of this. Has the
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 07:27:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the solution would be to force add the miboot stuff to the
debian-installer svn tree, and use it to build. This would make
debian-installer contrib/non-free though, which is why i asked for
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, we had it in woody boot-floppies, it seems.
I will be charatable and assume that was an accident, similar to many of
the dozens of other non-free peices of software we have shipped in
woody, and removed from sarge.
Also, maybe we should remove d-i from main altogether,
Here's a thought. First some background:
Last night, just to prove it could be done, I succeeded (first try)
in using BootX under MacOS9 on an OldWorld PowerMac G3 (beige
mini-tower) to load and run the debian-installer kernel and initrd
downloaded from:
On Sunday 28 March 2004 23:32, Rick Thomas wrote:
It's still possible to use quik or miboot to get a completely
macOS free machine, but we can leave that as an exercise for the
serious hackers.
Actually on some old powermac clones (like mine, a Umax C500 with a
lot of gadgets, like G3,
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:29:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 07:27:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the solution would be to force add the miboot stuff to the
debian-installer svn tree, and use it to build. This would make
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:32:49PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, we had it in woody boot-floppies, it seems.
I will be charatable and assume that was an accident, similar to many of
the dozens of other non-free peices of software we have shipped in
woody, and removed
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 03:32:18PM -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
Here's a thought. First some background:
Last night, just to prove it could be done, I succeeded (first try)
in using BootX under MacOS9 on an OldWorld PowerMac G3 (beige
mini-tower) to load and run the debian-installer kernel
Rick Thomas wrote:
I got as far as the point where the d-i tries to install a
bootloader. It died there because there is no boot loader for the
oldworld subarchitecture.
It's good to know that it got that far.
Declare that all OldWorld machines must have a minimal MacOS
partition with
Sven Luther wrote:
If i came up with the following :
1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
2) a small C program or shell script which generate said 1K boot
sector from some kind of more formal
Sven Luther wrote:
1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
2) a small C program or shell script which generate said 1K boot
sector from some kind of more formal version of the above description.
If you
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
2) a small C program or shell script which generate said 1K boot
sector
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:33:34PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
If i came up with the following :
1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
2) a small C program or shell script
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have not seen the code, so if someone describe this in detail to me, I
can then write a free reimplementation.
Now, we probably don't have the toolchain to do this, and a full cross
compiler for a handfull of instructions is not worth it.
Huh? Is the
Sven Luther wrote:
Rick wrote:
Now the part of debian-installer that died on me last night has an
easy fix: Simply do not install any boot loader at all for that
subarchitecture.
Rick, Quik can easily be used to boot from CD, no problem, sadly it
cannot be used to boot from floppies,
96 matches
Mail list logo
