On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I suspose the question needs to be asked; what are people doing with
> their old m68ks.
That's almost a FAQ on this list...
This is what I do with my old m68ks, and why I think it might be useful:
- I write code for them. In a small way that he
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I suspose the question needs to be asked; what are people doing with
> their old m68ks.
Just want to answer this one, despite not using debian, hope it's ok.
I've been running linux on my old A1200/Blizz1230III more or less non-stop
since early 199
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:17:54PM -0500, Michael Casadevall wrote:
[...]
>
> I suspose the question needs to be asked; what are people doing with their
> old m68ks. Most people around here are using them for (obviously enough)
> buildds to attack the unstable queue. I popped over to netbsd, whi
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:12:53AM -0500, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> Couple of probles with N-F-Uing KDE/GNOME
> While I don't have the numbers infront of me, I won't be suprised we'd
> fall apart 90% of the archive required for release, and last I checked,
> the Desktop Environment option in
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:55:51AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Should support, but won't do so. In fact IT world became rather monocultural
when it comes down to architectures. MIPS is dead (except fo
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:55:51AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Should support, but won't do so. In fact IT world became rather monocultural
> > when it comes down to architectures. MIPS is dead (except for embedded
> > systems), arm is embedde
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I understand the points. That's why I have suggested creating a custom Debian
> Distribution which focused on lighter-weight release for embedded and older
> platforms. One thing I always liked about Ubuntu and its releases that you
> could install an
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Should support, but won't do so. In fact IT world became rather monocultural
> when it comes down to architectures. MIPS is dead (except for embedded
> systems), arm is embedded only, PowerPC is mostly dead with the exception of
> some old PPCs and mai
ystem without all the cruft ontop of it.
Michael
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Joel Ewy wrote:
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:41:09 -0600
From: Joel Ewy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-68k@lists.debian.org
Subject: Uses for m68k Was: Re: debootstrapping m68k-coldfire
Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:45:56
Brad Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:17:54PM -0500, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> >
>
>> >> I suspose the question needs to be asked; what are people doing with
>> >> their
>> >> old m68ks. Most people around here are using them for (obviously enough)
>> >> buildds to attack the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:17:54PM -0500, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment; from the release
> manager perspective, does it pay to release two ports, one for (there
> perspective) a dead architecture like m68k (popcon lists 10 users, and I
Bui
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Tuesday 4. March 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Anyway, the problem isn't that bootstrapping coldfire is hard; I can do
> > that myself if needs be, and we'd have a working port within a few
> > months[1]. The problem is that adding another port isn't
4 Mar 2008 12:29:02 -0800
From: Brad Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael Casadevall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Finn Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-68k@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: debootstrapping m68k-coldfire
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:17:54PM -0500, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I suspose the question needs to be asked; what are people doing with their
> old m68ks. Most people around here are using them for (obviously enough)
> buildds to attack the unstable queue. I popped over to netbsd, which is
>
I do realize I'm the new guy here, but I do have an outside perspective,
and I do hope I'm not getting out of line here.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Finn Thain wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The problem is that adding another port isn't going to be accepted by
FTP masters: I don't
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The problem is that adding another port isn't going to be accepted by
> FTP masters: I don't recall who exactly, but an FTP master did tell me
> that a coldfire port in Debian would only be accepted if it was either
> part of the m68k port, or repl
Hi,
On Tuesday 4. March 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Anyway, the problem isn't that bootstrapping coldfire is hard; I can do
> that myself if needs be, and we'd have a working port within a few
> months[1]. The problem is that adding another port isn't going to be
> accepted by FTP masters: I d
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> - AIUI, with a working TLS implementation it is possible to compile an
> optimized library, and store it under /lib/tls/ so that the
> dynamic linker will pick it up depending on the subarchitecture you're
> running on. This will not make the opti
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:50:08PM -0500, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> Well, it's been discussed time and again. It's overdue; its time we
> bootstrap the coldfire port. Roman convienced me in his email that having
> coldfire as a seperate binary distrubution is without a shadow of a doubt
> the
19 matches
Mail list logo
