On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:27:09AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
>
> What is the HP machine you are talking about?
HP apollo Series 400, 68030 with I think 32MB RAM, and no harddisk at the
moment.
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:47:05PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> We have linux-images for amiga, atari, mac, mvme147, mvme16x, bvme6000, hp,
> q40, and sun3. Of those I can confirm that amiga and mac (on a Q840AV) are
> working, and atari does not, last I tried. About the others I have no
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:48:51PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:34:10PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
>
> > So to enlighten me, kernel 2.6 on m68k only supports correctly Amiga
> > and a bit Mac, but it does not support Atari, BVME, MVME, and Q40/Q60
> > at all, doe
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:34:10PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:15:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > > we still need kernels 2.2 and 2.4 for m68k: kernel 2.6 works well on
> > > my Quadra950
> >
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:34:10PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> So to enlighten me, kernel 2.6 on m68k only supports correctly Amiga
> and a bit Mac, but it does not support Atari, BVME, MVME, and Q40/Q60
> at all, does it?
As far as I know, that's correct.
> In that case, those unsupported s
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:15:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > we still need kernels 2.2 and 2.4 for m68k: kernel 2.6 works well on
> > my Quadra950
>
> Oh? It doesn't on mine. Can you point me towards a working kernel image?
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:36:37PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >>> It will be hardcoded to -4.0 with the next upload. And no, going to -4.1
> > >>> is no solution.
> > That explains it all, doesn't it? I am still wondering if we _have_ to use
> > 4.x at all, I switched only reluctantly from 2.95
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:42:25AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:18:48AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> > > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> How about I drop everything but amiga and mac from the official linux-images
> for now? I can still cross-build all the other arches, but with just two
> arches, that actually work, I would even do a native build, so we would
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> we still need kernels 2.2 and 2.4 for m68k: kernel 2.6 works well on
> my Quadra950
Oh? It doesn't on mine. Can you point me towards a working kernel image?
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:42:25AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I
> > > am
> > > not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with gcc-4
> > > already?
> > Why gcc-4.0 when 4.1 is now the default?
>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:18:48AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I am
> > not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with gcc-4
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I recently decided to install Debian on my 12yr old A3000 to see
what it would do. The machine is currently running AmigaOS 3.9 and
has run Minix 1.0 in the past.
One thing you could try: Switch your SCSI-Interface between syncronous
and asyncronous. There are some
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:00:32AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> BTW the kernel team(?) decided that we use gcc-4.0 now for all arches, I am
> not sure if that works for m68k, did anybody build a kernel with gcc-4
> already?
Why gcc-4.0 when 4.1 is now the default?
Maybe someone of the m6
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 09:32:10PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:33:50AM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
>
> > I think you are all aware the m68k port can be dropped for etch
> > if nothing is done to speed up m68k buildd network at least, but
> > unfortunately, not at
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 09:32:10PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> Whether or not m68k is a release candidate for etch depends largely on
> whether or not we can get caught up and stay caught up.
> Apparently that means we need more fast buildds and more porters.
It would be nice to have all bu
16 matches
Mail list logo
