On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 04:27:33PM +0200, Mirco Bauer wrote: > As said I am not a porter, so I don't know the difference between cats > and netwinder, but AFAIK cats is v4l and netwinder is v3l. > > Upstream tests and only has access to arm v5l and can't reproduce this > problem, as seen in the upstream bugreport.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:46:40PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > Both netwinder > (http://netwinder.osuosl.org/users/n/nelson/public_html/specs.html) > And CATS (http://www.simtec.co.uk/products/EB110ATX/) > Use the 'footbridge' architecture, which is the original StrongARM 110 > CPU with the Intel footbridge chipset. (Most 'strongarm' machines are > the later integrated system on chip devices SA1110 and SA1110) > Strongarm is v4 instructions set (v4l). Ok, is there some other difference at the instruction set level between the netwinder and cats systems? The mono build failures are very consistent in happening only on the netwinder systems AFAICS, and I'm pretty sure that there isn't a kernel difference between the two groups of autobuilders that would account for it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
