Re: Status

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 04/15/2016 12:52 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: >> This misinformation made me feel obliged to fix it in the upstream. >> So, today's QEMU git can boot FreeBSD/sparc64. Don't know though >> whether

Re: Status

On 04/15/2016 12:52 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > This misinformation made me feel obliged to fix it in the upstream. > So, today's QEMU git can boot FreeBSD/sparc64. Don't know though > whether it's really relevant for anyone at debian-sparc mailing list. > :-) Awesome, thanks a lot! > (15+

Re: Status

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Michael-John Turner > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64

Re: Status

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Michael-John Turner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64 emulation is pretty >> usable already, I have installed the sparc64 netinst images

Re: Status

On 07/04/16 10:29, Michael-John Turner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64 emulation is pretty >> usable already, I have installed the sparc64 netinst images that I built >> without any

Re: Status

On 07/04/16 10:12, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hi Michael! > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Michael-John Turner wrote: >> >>> >> >> I believe that will only work on x86 systems - KVM isn't supported on SPARC. >> QEMU has some early emulation support for 64-bit SPARC

Re: Status

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64 emulation is pretty > usable already, I have installed the sparc64 netinst images that I built > without any problems. Ah, I missed the date at the bottom of the page

Re: Status

Hi Michael! > On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Michael-John Turner wrote: > >> > > I believe that will only work on x86 systems - KVM isn't supported on SPARC. > QEMU has some early emulation support for 64-bit SPARC hardware but it's > not really usable yet[1]. The document

Re: Status

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:38:25AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 04/04/2016 05:04 AM, Jerome Ibanes wrote: > > * Does Debian/sparc64 offer any binary compatibility layer for solaris > > 10/sparc64 binaries? > > No, unfortunately not. You would have to resort to kvm to install > an

Re: Status

On 04/04/2016 05:04 AM, Jerome Ibanes wrote: > A few questions related to migrating a solaris 10/sparc64 only > application; which isn't available for other platforms. > > * Does Debian/sparc64 offer any binary compatibility layer for solaris > 10/sparc64 binaries? No, unfortunately not. You

Re: status of ruby 1.9.1 wrt porting

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:48:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Ruby 1.9.3 is going to be released in september, and is a candidate for the default ruby version in wheezy. A snapshot is available in experimental. Now is an ideal time to work on porting issues and get the fixes integrated

Re: Re: Status of (debian) linux on Sun Fire 480R

Hopefully debian kernel people will pick up a 2.6.32 kernel to unstable and testing in the near future. As you can see from http://packages.debian.org/linux-image-2.6.32 it's already there :) Great! Tried it on a SunFire 880, hangs at boot (see below). Will try a vanilla kernel when time

Re: Status of (debian) linux on Sun Fire 480R

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Hermann Lauer wrote: Big thanks to davem for fixing this and getting all into the mainstream. Hopefully debian kernel people will pick up a 2.6.32 kernel to unstable and testing in the near future. As you can see from

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

I don't think I can necessarily help with your parted issue. I just wanted to say that I was amazed with your creativity and patience in creating this special installation, and that I was impressed with your diagram of the disk. Also, the black magic you described in your e-mail to get this all to

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150 (parted and the like)

On Friday 29 April 2005 15:47, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: So, after all it looks like the problem was on my side. I'm terribly sorry for misinforming you, and I take back my words. Looks like Frans was right when he wrote about user error. I bow my head before him. He is the one who really

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150 (parted and the like)

Frans Pop wrote: Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: Probably putting swap partition in a different location could save me a bit of trouble. But on the side note, it was Solaris installer that put swap partition on cylinders 0-258 of the hard drive. So it looked to me that it knew what it was doing

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

Jurij Smakov wrote: Everyone is working towards the same goal here, so let's not get too picky about the choice of words. Thanks for bringing me back to my senses. Let's focus on the topic. # fdisk -l /dev/hda Disk /dev/hda (Sun disk label): 16 heads, 255 sectors, 19158 cylinders Units = cylinders

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Jurij Smakov wrote: Hi Wiktor, [snip] According to the logs the base-installer (it's postinst script, actually) exited with error cannot_install. According to the source, this error can only occur (given that the CD is properly mounted under /cdrom) if it fails to read the

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

Frans Pop wrote: Hi Wiktor, On Wednesday 27 April 2005 19:39, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: And the problem I described with the parted is consistent on the same machine. I can't get it to display partitions after I select manual partitioning from its menu. I'm afraid this is user error. You've

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: Frans Pop wrote: With sun-disklabel you are not allowed to put swap or RAID or LVM at the start of the disk. ext2/ext3 are OK. Frans, if you are referring to #283303, I thought that we've fixed it. At least the bug is marked 'fixed' when version 62

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

Hi Wiktor, On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: - The installer progreses up to the point where it wants to install a base system, but it is unable to do so. The error diplayed is: [!!] Install the base system Cannot install Debian The installer cannot figure out how to install Debian.

installation-reports (Vince.McIntyre fwd) [was: Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150]

PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150 Hi Wiktor, Juirij Andreas has made some progress! See logs attached. I could not make a full install, as the box is still needs to run solaris. Please could you forward this report to -sparc and maybe -boot. I'm not subscribed

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

Jurij Smakov wrote: Hi Wiktor, Thanks to Andres Salomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) we now have an unofficial netinst CD image, which should (hopefully) work on SunBlade. I would appreciate if people would test it. If testing works out, we'll try to propagate the required changes into the first

Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150

Hi Wiktor, On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: Hello good Debian people! Recently I tested the installation of Debian sarge on Sun Blade 150 and I got some success. Trying netinst / businesscard CD proved to be useless. So I tried the netboot image with 2.6.8 kernel and it worked! Big

Re: Status of 2.4 kernel with sparc 4m SMP

On Thu, 2004-03-25 14:46:07 -0700, Dave Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear 4m / SMP users, (and maybe Ben Collins) Can anybody update me WRT the status of 2.4.x running on 4m/SMP hardware ? Should work. Don't expect 2.6.x to yet work SMP on sun4m Please also keep

Re: Status of Debian sparc64 kernels

At 15:04 -0500 1/27/04, Ben Collins wrote: Most people know by now that the Debian sparc64 kernel packages are way out of date. I've been fighting with kernel sizes for awhile, and even the current 2.4.21-smp image is too big too boot. That's going to change over the next week. I just finished

Re: Status of Debian sparc64 kernels

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 Ben Collins wrote : Most people know by now that the Debian sparc64 kernel packages are way out of date. I've been fighting with kernel sizes for awhile, and even the current 2.4.21-smp image is too big too boot. That's going to change over the next week. I just finished

Re: Status of Debian sparc64 kernels

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:04:14PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: Most people know by now that the Debian sparc64 kernel packages are way out of date. I've been fighting with kernel sizes for awhile, and even the current 2.4.21-smp image is too big too boot. That's going to change over the next

Re: Status of KDE 3.1 in 'unstable'

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:06:28AM -0500, Daniel 'Doc' Sewell wrote: Hello, all... I thought by moving to 'unstable', I could get KDE 3.1. But when I tried to update, I got this message below. I assume this means it's not ready for public consumption? Or, I'll need to point at a

Re: Status of KDE 3.1 in 'unstable'

Hi, On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Ben Collins wrote: I thought by moving to 'unstable', I could get KDE 3.1. But when I tried to update, I got this message below. Looks like some packages are not yet built for sparc. Just means you'll have to wait. It is unstable :) These packages are krita and

Re: Status of KDE 3.1 in 'unstable'

That did the trick! I have almost all of KDE 3.1 installed and running! It looks great! Doc Sewell On Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, at 04:34 US/Central, Pieter-Paul Spiertz wrote: Hi, On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Ben Collins wrote: I thought by moving to 'unstable', I could get KDE 3.1. But when I

Re: Status of boot-floppies for Debian 3.0r2

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003, Adam DiCarlo wrote: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - help Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] to test the Sparc boot-floppies Hmmm, no SPARC build eh? Are there any sparc developers on this list who have access to a SPARC box running stable and can help us out by

Re: Status of boot-floppies for Debian 3.0r2

#include hallo.h * dann frazier [Fri, Jan 24 2003, 01:20:29AM]: done. http://people.debian.org/~dannf/boot-floppies/sparc/ let me know if i missed anything. Fine. BenC claimed to be the one how knows what is needed to build, but I cannot count on his promises and response times. Now, I would

Re: Status of boot-floppies for Debian 3.0r2

Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - help Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] to test the Sparc boot-floppies Hmmm, no SPARC build eh? Are there any sparc developers on this list who have access to a SPARC box running stable and can help us out by building this? Please follow-up to

Re: Status of Netra X1?

On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 07:20:13AM -0400, mdxi wrote: I've been following with some interest the recent thread(s) about the porting efforts on the Netra X1. Over the past week it has become apparent that I'll be getting at least one of these boxes in the near future, so I was wondering if

Re: Status of Sid/Slink/Potato/whatever it is for me

On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:39:36PM -0500, J. S. Connell wrote: 1) Running the 2.0.33 on the boot disks (as of a week or two ago) with libc6 (2.0.100-2.1), my syslog fills up quickly with: Unimplemented SPARC system call 102 PSR: 40800085 PC: 500ae110 NPC: 500ae114 Y: 0090 g0:

Re: status: pass 1 complete

Johnie Ingram wrote: w-bassmannproc/whattime.h: No such file or directory Install libproc-dev. -- see shy jo, stuck on a trian somewhere in Texas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: status: at libs/publib and still compiling

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : gforthError: -37 make[1]: *** [primitives.TAGS] Error 37 As maintainer of the gforth package, I had to switch to egcs to get it to build on i386... something clashes between the current gcc and the gforth sources, and I couldn't figure

Re: status: pass 1 complete

Mark == Mark W Eichin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark Yeah, avoid compiling emacs itself, but the emacs19 sources Mark should already have the sparc fixes. H... Loading buff-menu... Loading float-sup... make[2]: *** [emacs] Floating point exception make[2]: Leaving

Re: Status of the new glibc

Juan == Juan Cespedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Juan However: almost *all* of our binaries will have to be Juan recompiled. Is it safe to base a distribution on this version of glibc, if the authors feel free to break binary compatibility at any moment? From what I can tell from sparc

Re: Status of the new glibc

Is there any reason not to change the soname, if it's that incompatible? it's going to be *hard* to upgrade if we have to basically redo the last month worth of bootstrapping from scratch. If we can use a new soname, I can deal with moving forward with this release... but if we can't do that, or

Re: Status of the new glibc

On 19 Jan 1998, Mark W. Eichin wrote: Is there any reason not to change the soname, if it's that incompatible? It's not incompatible with glibc-2.0; it is with older pre-2.1 libraries. it's going to be *hard* to upgrade if we have to basically redo the last month worth of

Re: Status of the new glibc

It's not incompatible with glibc-2.0; it is with older pre-2.1 Oh, I see, and 2.0.90 is really 2.1-- rather than 2.0++. Note: I think all the programs will still work. They will only display 2 warnings when executing them. If you want, that I guess I misinterpreted -- I thought you

Re: Status of the new glibc

On Mon, Jan 19, 1998 at 11:17:13AM -0500, Mark W. Eichin wrote: It's not incompatible with glibc-2.0; it is with older pre-2.1 Oh, I see, and 2.0.90 is really 2.1-- rather than 2.0++. Note: I think all the programs will still work. They will only display 2 warnings when executing