linux >= 2.6.18 kernel with aranym ethernet support?

Hello 68k porters, Is there a linux kernel 2.6.18 (or newer) with aranym ethernet support available ? Or a patch to apply ? Thanks in advance, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?

Re: benchmark between aranym and crest

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:37:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Hello Debian M68k, > > I have made a very small benchmark of aranym and crest: > Here the results: > > The host is a Pentium 4 at 3.20GHz with 1Gb RAM. > aranym version is 0.9.4beta-3 > > The benchmark

Re: linux >= 2.6.18 kernel with aranym ethernet support?

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:38:37PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:45:17PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello 68k porters, > > > > Is there a linux kernel 2.6.18 (or newer) with aranym ethernet support > > available ? Or a patch to apply

cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

Hello Debian 68k porters, I have build gcc-4.1 4.1.2-12 as a m68k cross compiler using the official method. The debs for i386 are there: cross-binutils-2.17cvs20070426-8 is included. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagin

Re: linux >= 2.6.18 kernel with aranym ethernet support?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:33:31PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > Unfortunately network performance are not good compared to 2.4.27. > > It seems that the kernel stays idle instead of processing packets. > > You mean it's dropping packets outright? Do you get retransmits on the > host side? No

'menu 2.1.34' build but not uploaded ?

Hello 68k porters, It seems menu 2.1.34 has built successfully on crest but has never been uploaded. Cheers -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [buildd] Stuff

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:30:46PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi, > > My BoF about m68k here at DebConf went quite well; most of the release > team was present, as was James Troup for at least part of it. One thing > that came out of the discussion is that they really, really want 'faster > b

Re: [buildd] Stuff

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:53:46PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > I strongly suggest that the box buildding security update use > > distcc+crosscc. This will speed things quite a bit with no > > r

Re: [buildd] Stuff

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:26:41PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:53:46PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > I strongly suggest that the box buildding security update use > > distcc+crosscc. This will speed things quite a bit with no > > r

Building etch-m68k

Hello m68k porters, I have retargeted my aranym installation to build for etch-m68k (having installed a etch-m68k and cross-compiling with Etch gcc). So far I have built python2.4_2.4.4-3 and libx11_2:1.0.3-7 Should I upload them ? If yes, how should I proceed ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [buildd] Stuff

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:46:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > This is my attempt with quinn-diff: > > Between etch and etch-m68k: > > > > Between etch and security.d.o: 40 source packages. > > > > By the way, if I build them, can I up

Re: linux >= 2.6.18 kernel with aranym ethernet support?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:40:42PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:33:31PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > Unfortunately network performance are not good compared to 2.4.27. > > > It seems that the kernel stays idle instead of processing packe

Re: 'menu 2.1.34' build but not uploaded ?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:44:58PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:45:37PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello 68k porters, > > > > It seems menu 2.1.34 has built successfully on crest but has never been > > uploaded. > > Signe

python2.4_2.4.4-3_m68k.changes REJECTED

an Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-DAK: dak process-unchecked X-Katie: $Revision: 1.65 $ X-DAK-Rejection: automatic (moo) X-Katie-Rejection: automatic (moo) Subject: python2.4_2.4.4-3_m68k.changes REJECTED Rejected: python2.4_2.4.4-3_m68k.change

Re: [buildd] Stuff

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:46:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > regular dupload? You may need to target etch-m68k instead of etch, I > guess. ISTR sbuild having an option for that (specifying the release to > generate .changes files for). 'sbuild -d etch-m68k' does not work. I added a priority

Re: [buildd] Stuff

On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:25:53AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > For the time being I am using 'sbuild -d stable' and I edit the .changes > > file manually. > > Do you have a chroot-etch-m68k? Does it have deb-src listed for > etch-m68k? Also sbuild would need a minor patch to build etch-m6

building kernel modules packages

Hello m68k porters, I try to build kernel modules packages (linux-modules-extra, loop-aes) but they FTBFS with this message: ld: cannot open linker script file /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.18-4-amiga/arch/m68k/kernel/module.lds: No such file or directory Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ima

Re: 'menu 2.1.34' build but not uploaded ?

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:38:50PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:13:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:44:58PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:45:37PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:

Re: building kernel modules packages

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:37:25PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > 396220 has been around for almost a year. Before that the problem was > > > fixdep in 342248. I don't seem to generate this file for any of my > > > kernels, so I don't even know what it looks like. > > > > It's not generated, i

Re: cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:14:10PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > On 6/17/07, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:54:20PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > >> hi, Bill > >> > >> I just got sid installed on ppc and my ppc vers

etch-m68k: summary

Hello m68k porters, I have finished the first stage of building etch-m68k, so here is a summary: 81 packages needed building, see 18 packages uploaded: 13 are in the NEW queue, 5 were rejected. 16 packages are dep-waiting for mysql-dfsg-5.0

Re: cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:39:42PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > On 6/22/07, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Please make a tarball similar to the one I provide and a detached > >signature. As for the key identity, that is up to the people using the >

Re: cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:39:07PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Brian Morris wrote: > > > the overhead is in the mac somewhere. not in the network per se (could > > be latency in the mac accessing the net though). > > I don't know what your test looks like, but ISTR that distc

etch-m68k security update

Hello m68k porters, I have build all etch security updates that do not build-depend on mysql: aircrack-ng_0.6.2-7etch1 clamav_0.90.1-3etch2 ekg_1.7~rc2-1etch1 file_4.17-5etch1 freetype_2.2.1-5+etch1 gimp_2.2.13-1etch1 ipsec-tools_0.6.6-3.1etch1 libapache-mod-jk_1.2.18-3etch1 libexif_0.6.13-5etch1

Re: etch-m68k security update

On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 12:08:32AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello m68k porters, > > > > I have build all etch security updates that do not build-depend on mysql: > > > > aircrack-ng_0.6.2-7etch1 > > clamav_0.90.1-3etch2 >

Re: cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 09:52:30PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > thus given a g4 that was 3x faster than the g3, it could only possibly > reduce > this time to 18seconds (another 10%) > > the 3.5 times improvement of the compile time is great, but it is not > even using more than 25% of the 250mhz

Re: etch-m68k security update

On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 08:50:41PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 11:30:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Any suggestion concerning what I should do with them ? > > Upload them to etch-m68k. That or we need to get the security pe

Re: etch-m68k security update

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:08:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 12:08:32AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > If you mean for etch, I guess you should upload them to etch-m68k. > > &

Re: etch-m68k security update

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:15:12AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > > Eh, I thought the security people wanted to do m68k builds, but I'm not > > > > sure. Joey? > > > > > > buildd.debian.org doesn't have wanna-build db's for e

Re: cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:33:39PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > hi, all > > just to let you know my attempt to send my ppc tarball to bill in > email failed, some server unknown where to me (called yellowpig) > rejected it although gmail took it it bounced somewhere. Sorry, it seems all my emails

Re: cross gcc-4.1.2-12 packages

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:52:57PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > On 6/29/07, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:33:39PM -0700, Brian Morris wrote: > > > > >Next time, please sign the whole tarball. This prevents tampering by >

etch-m68k stalled by NEW processing

Dear Debian 68k porters, My effort to to build etch-m68k are stalled because the packages I have uploaded are stuck in the new queue and I did not receive instructions how to upload the four rejected packages. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBS

Re: etch-m68k stalled by NEW processing

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 08:11:45AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Hi, > > > My effort to to build etch-m68k are stalled because the packages I have > > uploaded are stuck in the new queue and I did not receive instructions > > how to upload the four rejected packages. > > The reason for rejectio

Re: Bug#698380: pari: FTBFS in dobench

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:41:09PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Bill Allombert dixit: > > >Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to restart my aranym+distcc+crosscc > >m68k buildd ? > > I personally distrust ccache and don’t believe distcc can add anything > t

fixed vim at crest:/home/ballombe/vim

Hello Luca and Debian-m68k, I have managed to build a vim that does not just segfault when you press an arrow key on crest. I have copied it at crest:/home/ballombe/vim. AFAICT, the bug is a nasty optimisation bug when compiling the file term.c. Probably linked to alignement problem: We have te

Bug#230516: console-common: keymap for Atari french keyboard.

French Layout # --- # # Copyright 2004 Bill Allombert # Based on: # Copyright 1994 Roman Hodek # Updated August 1998 Roman Hodek # # This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public # License. See the file README.le

Bug#248667: Fail to mount root with root=/dev/fd0

Package: kernel-image-2.4.25-atari Version: 2.4.25-1 Severity: normal Hello, I have a Falcon 030 with 4Mb of RAM. I have a custom floppy with the root filesystem. I pass to the kernel root=/dev/fd0 to boot. It work fine with 2.2.20, but not with 2.4.20-5, and neither with 2.4.25-1. The boot sequ

Re: m68k in danger of being ignored for testing propagation

On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:54:33PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Hi, > > in recent weeks from the global point of view m68k has started to hold > up the testing migration due to both lacking buildd power and internal > compiler errors. As of the most recent britney run, the number of > missing bu

on m68k and pari

Dear Debian-m68k porters, As you know, due to bug #356045 in libc6-dev, it is not possible to compile a program that #include with -O and above. This behaviour occurs in particular in the sid chroot of crest, making impossible to test-build some packages there. I would like to investigate the b

Re: on m68k and pari

On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:16:47AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:00:45PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > As you know, due to bug #356045 in libc6-dev, it is not possible to > > compile a program that #include with -O and above. > > >

Re: on m68k and pari

On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:16:47AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:00:45PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > I would like to investigate the build failure of pari (2.3.0-1) on m68k. > > (I have to say the packages was building fine with gcc 4

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

On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi folks, > > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a > release architecture for etch. Time will tell. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRI

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

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:47:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Eh, what are you talking about? Debian is getting way better than it > used to be, at least that's the impression I have. If you have another > opinion, please share that one with me (but that's off-topic for > debian-release as well

Re: [buildd] mesa signed

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:55:54PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > I just signed the log for mesa, so another big chunk of the dep-wait is > > about to come free. > > I forgot to take q650 back online, but that cannot be the only reason we > dropped below 90%. Are the package maintainers crankin

Re: Fwd: linux-image-2.6-17-mac tries

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:25:00PM +0200, Petr Stehlik wrote: > > plus, do i need to figure for how much ram > > the more RAM you gives to Linux the more it will like you, won't it? ;-) Sure, but are not we limited to about 128Mb of RAM by the plateform ? This is not much by current standard. I

Re: Fwd: linux-image-2.6-17-mac tries

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:04:14AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > the more RAM you gives to Linux the more it will like you, won't it? ;-) > > > > Sure, but are not we limited to about 128Mb of RAM by the plateform ? > > This is not much by current standard. > > Do tell that to my Falcon/CT60

benchmark between aranym and crest

Hello Debian M68k, I have made a very small benchmark of aranym and crest: Here the results: The host is a Pentium 4 at 3.20GHz with 1Gb RAM. aranym version is 0.9.4beta-3 The benchmark has been run three time on each hardware. host-i386: host running debian-i386 host-amd64: host running debia

Re: benchmark between aranym and crest

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:57:37PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Thanks for doing such an extensive benchmark. For testing package builds, > we really need Petr's disk access speedups ... Well before doing packages builds, there is still some issues to fix: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/pari-2.3.1$ cat c

Re: benchmark between aranym and crest

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 06:37:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > So we see that aranym-amd64 and aranym-i386 are about the same > > > speed, that crest is between 3 and 4 times faster and that the > > > host is between 250 and 400 times faster.

Re: benchmark between aranym and crest

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:23:52PM +0200, Petr Stehlik wrote: > The gcc-4.1.1-14 does not compile anything. It always crashes here > (strace output): > > 7314 open("/tmp/ccoNE7AY.s", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0666) = 3 > 7314 fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0600, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 > 7314 old_mma

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

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's > > > applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's request. > > > > As someon

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

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > buildds: 19 > > There are 19 buildds actively uploading packages for m68k (Aug 20 to > > present). This indicates that individual buildds are roughly an order of > > mag

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

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 04:20:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > >> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because

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

On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the > cases closest to the packages I maintain, asking "why don't they work > on m68k?" I expected you would have realised by that time that you maintain some of

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

On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a > > release architecture for etch. > > > We have also asked about removing m68k from tes

Re: benchmark between aranym and crest

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:58:33PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:57:37PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > Thanks for doing such an extensive benchmark. For testing package builds, > > we really need Petr's disk access speedups ... > > Well be

Re: QEMU

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Kars de Jong wrote: > > Generating an exception and just letting the FPU emulator in the kernel > > handle it didn't work? > > Umm, no, this was user mode emulation. I figured that would be easier to > implement (and also more useful for Debian) than full

Re: QEMU

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 05:52:11PM +0200, Kars de Jong wrote: > > The system-call-emulation is faster but the behaviour is special: > > for example qemu will emulate exec("/usr/bin/gcc") by exec("/usr/bin/gcc") > > on the native system and will run the native compiler not the emulated > > one. I di

First package build on aranym

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: QEMU

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Kars de Jong wrote: > > > > Generating an exception and just letting the FPU emulator in the kernel > >

Re: QEMU

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:59:17PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > It would be nice if it could run a cross-compiler instead. That would give > > full > > speed for compilations, and emulated speed for the other stuff. > > I'm afraid that

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

On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a > > release architecture for etch. > > > We have also asked about removing m68k from tes

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: > <http://people.Debian.org/~ballombe/misc/pari_2.3.1-2_m68k.build> > > It should be compare

First package build with aranym+distcc+crossgcc

Dear Debian 68k porters, I successfully build pari under aranym using distcc and gcc-cross running on the host. The full buildlog is available here: It took 7h30, but there is still room for improving the set up (due to a b

Re: First package build on aranym

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:32:59AM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > It should be compared to the buildlog on hobbes: > > > > > > > > > It took approximatively 24 hours (wallclock time) so it is approximately > >

Re: First package build with aranym+distcc+crossgcc

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:03:20AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:42:31AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > I successfully build pari under aranym using distcc and gcc-cross > > running on the host. > > The full buildlog is a

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

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:40:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > [-68k readded] > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:04:49PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Bill Allombert a ?crit : > > >My personnal plan is to set up one or two fast amd64 octocore as a m68k > > >bui

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

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:02:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:40:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:04:49PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > Bill Allombert a ?crit : > > > >My personnal plan i

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 > aranym instances (all with very large 80+GB drives) and a M5484LITE > board that could ru

Re: m68k is a release arch for etch

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:05:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:58:25PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > IIRC, the m68k kernels are already cross-compiled. > > Yes, which has repeatedly caused problems due to assumptions in the kernel > packag

First package build on aranym+distcc+NFS

Hello Debian 68k porters, I have successfully build the pari package on aranym in 1 hour 51 minutes, (debuild -b -B build), using distcc+crosscc+NFS. The log is available here: This was fully successful this time. (hobbes tak

Re: benchmark between aranym and crest

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:57:37PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > I have made a very small benchmark of aranym and crest: > > Here the results: > > > > wget tar zxf rm -r MPQS galois > > = > > host-i386

Re: First package build with aranym+distcc+crossgcc

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:42:31AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > It should be compared to the buildlog on hobbes: > <http://buildd.Debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=pari;ver=2.3.1-2;arch=m68k;stamp=1161007964> % rmadison pari-gp pari-gp |2.1.3-1 | oldstable | alpha, arm, hppa, i386

Re: First package build with aranym+distcc+crossgcc

On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 02:31:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:42:31AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Dear Debian 68k porters, > > > > I successfully build pari under aranym using distcc and gcc-cross > > running on the host. > &

Re: First package build on aranym+distcc+NFS

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 12:12:51PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > Since my setup is working well now, I offer to attempt to build others > > packages you would like to try out. > > mozilla Maybe you means something else ? mozilla is not in etch and will be removed from sid so there is little

gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

Dear Debian 68k porters, I successfully built gnumeric on my aranym+distcc+crosscc setup. The buildlog is here: I will upgrade aranym to fix the MMU emulation issue and try koffice this time. This will also fix a NFS time sta

Re: gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 10:44:28PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 06:32:34PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Dear Debian 68k porters, > > > > I successfully built gnumeric on my aranym+distcc+crosscc setup. > > > > The buildlog is he

Re: gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 08:00:40PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Well, I have rebuild gnumeric under a cleaner environment and > > uploaded it. > > > > Before uploading, I have tested the

Re: gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 12:56:47PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:44:14PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 08:00:40PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: >

Re: gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:33:39PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:19:39PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 12:56:47PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > > > Is that octave2.1 or octave2.9? octave2.9 is building on akir

Re: gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 12:56:47PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > Is that octave2.1 or octave2.9? octave2.9 is building on akire. > octave2.1 is still needs-build. > > Please also try gnuradio-core if you get the chance. icedove might be a > good choice also. > > If you drop me/us a list of w

Re: gnumeric built on aranym+distcc+crosscc

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:49:38PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:33:39PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:19:39PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 12:56:47PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: &g

icedove built

Dears 68k porters, I successfully build icedove with aranym+distcc and uploaded the packages. The log is there: However icedove 1.5.0.8-1 have just been uploaded. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue s

cross gcc-4.1.1-20 packages and using distcc+crosscc

Hello Debian 68k porters, I have build gcc-4.1 4.1.1ds2-20 as a m68k cross compiler using the official method. The debs for i386 are there: My experience with the distcc+crosscc set up has been very positive, in fact I did not hit a sin

sendfile() syscall on 68k with 2.4.27 kernel

Dear Debian 68k porters, It seems that that boa try to use the sendfile syscall on m68k and fails, see bug #330871. Is sendfile available with m68k linux 2.4.27 ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subje

koffice_1.6.0-3_m68k.changes ACCEPTED

a large blue swirl here. - Forwarded message from Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: koffice_1.6.0-3_m68k.changes ACCEPTED Accepted: karbon_1.6.0-3_m68k.deb to pool/main/k/k

Re: koffice_1.6.0-3_m68k.changes ACCEPTED

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:12:08AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello 68k porters, > > > > I just finished to build koffice. It took 81 hours, most of them where > > spend running the libto

Re: cross gcc-4.1.1-20 packages and using distcc+crosscc

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:01:20AM -0800, Brian Morris wrote: > i built this all on my g4/550ppc. somehow i got ds2-17, i didn't see 20. > is that going to cause me problems. what is the ds2 anyway. is that > eliminated > when the gcc build that is in progress now gets done ??. it looked like > on

Re: Buildd

On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0500, Mark Duckworth wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 16:39 +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > On the upside: gcc-4.1 is finally building. May take up to five days to > > > finish. I'll set up a watchdog cronjob touching the log every hour to make > > > sure it's

openscenegraph still FTBFS

On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 10:23:13AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > I have uploaded the resulting yacas packages. > > If you tell me packages that did not build with -91 but should with -20, > > I can build them. > > I'm marking these for you. The first three had the same build failure > as yac

Re: Buildd

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:23:21AM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > Could it be possible to experiment with using crosscc+distcc on this > > machine ? That would require a local fast box to run a distcc server. > > That would perhaps be possible, the gateway box is a amd64 3000+ - Mark > will hav

Re: Buildd

Just for information: 1) Once set up, the distcc server does not need root/sudo access on the box. 2) The CPU usage of the distcc server is modest: the distcc client preprocess the source code before sending it to the server. Given the speed ratio involved, preprocessing the source on the client

building icedove_1.5.0.8-3

Hello m68k porters, Please mark me (ballombe) as building icedove_1.5.0.8-3 (and other packages you see fit) Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: building icedove_1.5.0.8-3

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:59:18AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello m68k porters, > > > > Please mark me (ballombe) as building icedove_1.5.0.8-3 (and other > > packages you see fit) > >

Re: building icedove_1.5.0.8-3

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 07:11:30AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello m68k porters, > > > > Please mark me (ballombe) as building icedove_1.5.0.8-3 (and other > > packages you see fit) > >

not-for-us: kvm, linux-modules-di-s390

Hello Debian-68k porters, kvm and linux-modules-di-s390 should be marked not-for-us since they are i386 and s390 only packages. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta

failed build of gnuradio_3.0.2-1

Hello 68k porters, gnuradio compile fine but fails the test suite under aranym, see It might be limitation of aranym FPU emulation, so it might work on real hardware. So I suggest to retry it on re

Re: Change in package architectures list.

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:46:55PM -0800, Rob Browning wrote: > > In the latest upload of stalin (a new version), I removed arm and m68k > from the architecture list. However, I wanted to double-check and > make sure that was appropriate. > > I believe compiling stalin with gcc now requires a bi

Re: building icedove_1.5.0.8-3

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:38:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > gambc might be a good candidate in the future. It eats >600MB for cc1. Thanks for the suggestion, I just built it and uploaded it. Cheers, -- Bill.

Re: Hardware for Debian people

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 12:57:11AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10860 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > So, if you want a machine from the following list, send a mail to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and give a rough description what you plan to do with > > it. > > Hihi, Update: Please notice th

  1   2   >