ICE on linux-2.6 (2.6.18, official debs)

Hi, after failing to build my own kernel from the debian package I tried to rebuild the official images. But all I get is CC net/core/link_watch.o CC net/core/filter.o include/linux/nodemask.h:170: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with pre

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 03:44 +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:41:59PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > > > > I have a Falcon/CT60 with EtherNAT (MII driver support for linux may or > > may not work easily) > > How did you get the EtherNAT? I've been waiting for a year

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:41:59PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > > I have a Falcon/CT60 with EtherNAT (MII driver support for linux may or > may not work easily) How did you get the EtherNAT? I've been waiting for a year now for the two boards that I ordered and paid for. Writing a Linux driver

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

Hi, On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > >> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Well, that's what we want as well and if m68k could provide this, what's > >> > the

Re: bug status

Hi, On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > As already mentioned with the next gcc release all reported bug should be > > -17? Yes, > > apbs: the problem is the maloc package, which got hit by the binutils > > problem, so needs to be recompiled. > > givenback Um, maloc needs a

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:40:06PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > I could leave it running pretty much all the time except for a couple > hours every few days. Sounds worth the effort to me. Very cool. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

Hi, On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > Insisting that m68k could never meet the architecture release requirements > doesn't make me think we're being unfair to m68k, it reinforces my belief > that cutting m68k from the full release was the correct decision. The > arch criteria weren't

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 19:02 -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:53:09PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > > If I volunteered my falcon to this purpose, how often would I be able to > > commandeer it to run MiNT again :-P > > Hey it's your box. ;) > > Seriously, several build

Re: bug status

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 01:57:30AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > As already mentioned with the next gcc release all reported bug should be -17? > fixed, that of course doesn't mean there can't be any bugs left, just that > it gets more difficult to find them now. Recompiling with -O0 is

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:57:07PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > download debian. Any distro recommendation? I have an ethernec too so > I imagine it'll be possible to sort out the network access. I generally prefer to run stable on my dedicated buildds with a recent kernel, but several buildd

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:53:09PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > If I volunteered my falcon to this purpose, how often would I be able to > commandeer it to run MiNT again :-P Hey it's your box. ;) Seriously, several buildds only get brought up when we're in a crunch. -- Stephen R. Marenka

bug status

Hi, As already mentioned with the next gcc release all reported bug should be fixed, that of course doesn't mean there can't be any bugs left, just that it gets more difficult to find them now. Recompiling with -O0 is a good indicator, if it now suddenly works, it's more likely to be a compiler

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

Of course with Aranym, I'm pretty confident now. When it comes to just building software we need gcc to work and it works. Aranym is quite a bit faster in MMU mode with cxx-exceptions. Under MiNT aranym is roughly as fast as my CT60. PS: My ct60 has 256MB of ram and 80MHz cpu clock right now (w

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

If I volunteered my falcon to this purpose, how often would I be able to commandeer it to run MiNT again :-P Thanks, Mark On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 14:22 -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:41:59PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > > > I have a Falcon/CT60 with EtherNAT (MII d

Re: First package build on aranym

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:20:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Dear m68k porters, > > I have almost successfully build a package (pari) on aranym. > The buildlog is there: > > > It should be compared to the buildlog on hobbes: >

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:41:59PM -0400, Mark Duckworth wrote: > I have a Falcon/CT60 with EtherNAT (MII driver support for linux may or > may not work easily), several compaq P3 xeon servers that could run The Falcon would probably be the biggest help. > aranym instances (all with very large 8

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 12:01 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:14, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > That's the point where I'll need a more elaborate introduction to > > britney. The 'hints' is some file where you define preferred solutions > > for these conflict situations, did I g

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

> > Maybe just looking here will give you an idea: > > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/ > > > > There's even a README :-) > > That's what I absolutely _love_ about Debian. Just about anybody is real > helpful. > > I'll take that back. Frans was actually being helpful here. Is the stuf

Re: Please requeue octave2.9

> > can someone please requeue octave2.9? It fails with missing build > > dependencies (but at the same time claims they are installed => weird). > > Probably a broken chroot. Indeed; that's been zeus at a time when DNS was broken... could not update debhelper, it seems. Should be fine now.

Re: [buildd] sawfish is built but not installed

> > Well, it has been built by garkin and garkin is somewhat special, > > because it's attached via serial link to the network. > > Neat!. In a weird way. Imagine my feeling now that I'm watching xfree86 being uploaded via a similar serial link. Weird doesn't even begin to descibe it. Unfortunatel

Re: Please requeue octave2.9

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:45:59AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote: > Hi, > > can someone please requeue octave2.9? It fails with missing build > dependencies (but at the same time claims they are installed => weird). Probably a broken chroot. > Please cc me, I'm not subscribed. It's queued since 10

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

> > The suite itself? ftpmaster would make it, and a britney script would > > be cronned to handle it. That shouldn't require any particular attention > > though. > > > > + keeps the arch alive > > > > - some work to keep m68k-testing in sync with real testing > > > > neede

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

> > And that's where both improved scheduling and closer coordination would > > help. Meaning I'd appreciate some advance warning if something big comes > > down the pipeline, so we can shunt it to the right machine to deal with > > it. > > Are there stats about memory, disk, and CPU usage for the

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

> > Much appreciated. Maybe you can give me some help to get started. > > Maybe just looking here will give you an idea: > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/ > > There's even a README :-) That's what I absolutely _love_ about Debian. Just about anybody is real helpful. It does give me

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Are there stats about memory, disk, and CPU usage for the previous > build, upon which you can base decisions about which buildd to use? Not really. Of course there are some lines about build times and disk usage in every (successful) build log on buildd.debian.org. An

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > Another buildd for stable-security seems a good idea, but the problem of > > peak times remains. > > And that's where both improved scheduling and closer coordination would > help. Meaning I'd appreciate some advance warning if something big comes >

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:14, Michael Schmitz wrote: > That's the point where I'll need a more elaborate introduction to > britney. The 'hints' is some file where you define preferred solutions > for these conflict situations, did I get that right? [...] > Much appreciated. Maybe you can give

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

> arm 11:44:41 > m68k 26:39:13 > > m68k is an order of a magnitude slower and that's not acceptable. I do not doubt m68k is a lot slower. We'll need to find a way to more intelligently schedule packages that require a lot of space or RAM to build. The Falcon/CT60 could help a lot there, e

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:00:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 09:49:50AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > Oh well... > > It doesn't meet the release criteria because of the toolchain problems, that > > have now been solved. > > No, it hasn't. You need to be reliably

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

> > > So, if someone could give me a brief intro as to how testing migration of I really ought to have dropped the 'brief' there :-) > > > packages works, and what would be needed to modify britney, I'd welcome > > > it. > > > > The idea, presumably, would be to have a separate britney instance j

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:43:03AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > The point is that m68k gets kicked out _before_ any alternative has been > implemented. Well, yeah, but it's not because we weren't given a fair chance. I'm not happy about this any more than you are, but this doesn't help. Sorry. P

Please requeue octave2.9

Hi, can someone please requeue octave2.9? It fails with missing build dependencies (but at the same time claims they are installed => weird). Please cc me, I'm not subscribed. Thanks Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > The reason we keep all architectures in sync is so that you end > up running the same thing if you install "Debian" on any supported > architecture. Otherwise you'd install "Debian" on i386 and have the > latest features, but install "Debian" on alpha an