On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 07:37:15PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > To me it seems clear that compiling all of kde and gnome to run on
> > traditional m68k hardware is a waste of time and cycles. However,
> > how do we carve up the dependency tree so th
Hi,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> I agree with you that dpkg and other tools are dog slow. I got the feeling
> that especially scripts are very slow on m68k (interpreted languages).
> The performance difference between AmigaOS and Linux is enourmous, even when
> you consider th
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> To me it seems clear that compiling all of kde and gnome to run on
> traditional
> m68k hardware is a waste of time and cycles. However, how do we carve up
> the dependency tree so that we can support what we want without killing
> ourselves?
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 09:51:49AM +0100, Christian Brandt wrote:
> > I still have an i486sl33 machine at home. It feels faster than my 060
> > Amigas, although the 060s should be superior to the 486. So, maybe there's
> > an arch specific slow down (BE/LE)?
> [...]
> Debian uses rather generous
* Ingo Juergensmann:
> I still have an i486sl33 machine at home. It feels faster than my 060
> Amigas, although the 060s should be superior to the 486. So, maybe there's
> an arch specific slow down (BE/LE)?
Thats absolutely true, with the introduction of m68k Debian (2.0?) I
made some test and
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:24:55AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[gentoo]
> > Only partially so. I once tried it, it wasn't even remotely useful.
>
> I guess the Debian build daemons have more RAM/disk than the average machine
> running Linux/m68k?
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:05:55AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > > I think most of the Debian m68k porters would prefer to stay with
> > > > Debian
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:05:55AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > I think most of the Debian m68k porters would prefer to stay with Debian
> > > instead of another distro. Just an assumption... ;)
> >
>
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:05:55AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > I think most of the Debian m68k porters would prefer to stay with Debian
> > instead of another distro. Just an assumption... ;)
>
> Yes, but I'll say it anyway: Gentoo gives you suffic
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
[snip]
> > 2. General purpose PC for lightweight GUI apps: word processing with
> >SIAG Office, FLWriter, or AbiWord, email with Silpheed, light Web
> >browsing with Dillo, and so on.
>
> I'll travel today to my parents house again. Usual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/07 08:51, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:04:10PM -0600, Joel Ewy wrote:
>
[snip]
> As stated above, I've got the impression that e.g. dpkg is way faster on a
> slow 486 than on a (nominal) faster 060. I don't know why,
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:04:10PM -0600, Joel Ewy wrote:
> I've run Potato, Woody, and Sarge on Macs ranging from a IIci to a
> Quadra 840av, with Q700 and Q630 to fill in the middle. I've also run
> Linux of various different distros on all kinds of x86 hardware from SLS
> (anyone remember that
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:48:25AM +0100, Christian Brandt wrote:
> >
>
>>> >>> OTOH, I would be willing to invest more machines, time and money in
>>> >>> keeping
>>> >>> the m68k port alive - regardless of being it a part of Debian or not.
>>> >>> Meaning: wi
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:48:25AM +0100, Christian Brandt wrote:
> > OTOH, I would be willing to invest more machines, time and money in keeping
> > the m68k port alive - regardless of being it a part of Debian or not.
> > Meaning: with all those political background Debian incorporates, it may
Speaking of discussions we need to have :)
Right now we don't have a bunch of distcc or aranym buildds. Do we want
to go there?
Distcc has it's limitations, including not the least of which that we
become somewhat dependent on cross-compilers. However, it's about the
only way we've been ab
* Ingo Juergensmann:
> OTOH, I would be willing to invest more machines, time and money in keeping
> the m68k port alive - regardless of being it a part of Debian or not.
> Meaning: with all those political background Debian incorporates, it may be
> worth a thought to fork the infrastructure and
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > > FP is even worse, the fp registers have different sizes, long double
> > > support is different and the fp return value is different.
> >
> > Floating point is not an exact science anyway;
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:46:32PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If that turns out to be not feasible, we'll then have to decide where to
> > go; the options as I see them at that point are these:
> > * Go with an emulator on an amd64 machine, and hop
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> This is a confusion in wording on my part, I'm afraid. When I say
> "classic m68k", I mean "non-coldfire m68k processors supported by
> Linux", i.e., at least the 68020 :)
Well, you seem to a have broader definition of "near-strict subset" than
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > My question is now:
> > What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond?
>
> IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out of
> existence,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:53:52PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > It's probably not impossible, but I highly question whether it's really
> > > desirable. The instructions sets are already quite different
> >
> > This is not true. The ColdFire V4e i
Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
>>> It's probably not impossible, but I highly question whether it's really
>>> desirable. The instructions sets are already quite different
>> This is not true. The ColdFire V4e instruction set is a near-strict
>> subse
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It's probably not impossible, but I highly question whether it's really
> > desirable. The instructions sets are already quite different
>
> This is not true. The ColdFire V4e instruction set is a near-strict
> subset of the m68k one. The only
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:29:02PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > At this point, though, I'm still convinced that it's possible to create
> > a port which will work on both coldfire and "classic" m68k; and with a
> > glibc that has TLS support (which we
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:02:05PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> I agree completely. I've fought political attempts to downgrade bugs
> before (in gentoo's ppc-macos port. Fortunately, those in power were more
> open to discussion.)
> In Debian, it seems that the political cost of losing an arch is
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
Combining 3 mail replies to one...
> > My question is now:
> > What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond?
> IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out of
> existence, I don't see much further
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > My question is now:
> > What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond?
>
> IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out
> of existence, I don't see much
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> At this point, though, I'm still convinced that it's possible to create
> a port which will work on both coldfire and "classic" m68k; and with a
> glibc that has TLS support (which we still need as well), it doesn't
> even have to slow down things
Hi,
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > > How is the Coldfire port going on?
> > I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisiting the
> > ISA differences etc, Aranym wins on availabil
Hi,
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> My question is now:
> What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond?
IMO as long as there are few people who have the power to veto m68k out of
existence, I don't see much further hope for m68k within Debian.
The absolutely worst mist
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:02:53AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> > > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > > How is the Coldfire port going on?
> > I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without rev
Hi,
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> I do think we'll have a hard time convincing people that it's a good
> idea to support a port which exists in emulation only.
>
> Re: price: we received freebies from Freescale to make this possible. I
> don't see why they would not want to repea
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> >
> > > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > > How is the Coldfire port going on?
> >
> > I think
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> It would be nice if you could provide step-by-step instructions on how to
> get a working system, I gave up after I could not get nfsroot to work.
It was pretty straightforward for me. The ISO image which you can
download fro
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > How is the Coldfire port going on?
>
> I made some progress and had a revelation a few weeks back. I have a lot
> to learn still, but I'll eventually get there. I hope to be able to make
> it work by the time Lenny gets out, b
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:03:15PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Well, I just had a discussion about m68k and the Etch release.
>
> My question is now:
> What is the *exact* plan for m68k for Etch and beyond? Was there any action
> yet to ship our own Etch release? Is there the infr
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > How is the Coldfire port going on?
>
> I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisitin
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
How is the Coldfire port going on?
I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisiting the
ISA differences etc, Aranym w
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:50:17PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> > How is the Coldfire port going on?
> I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisiting the
> ISA differences etc, Aranym wins on availabi
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> How will the m68k cope with the glibc problem for Lenny in the future?
> How is the Coldfire port going on?
I think Aranym is a better prospect than ColdFire. Without revisiting the
ISA differences etc, Aranym wins on availability and price.
-f
41 matches
Mail list logo
