Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Chris Rutter
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Philip Blundell wrote: > I don't have any strong feelings either way. "Footbridge" is obviously more > generic and I guess it's the technically correct choice, but "netwinder" is > more likely to mean something to the majority of people installing Debian. I > imagine there

Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Philip Blundell
>Okay. Should the subarchitecture be called `footbridge' rather than >`netwinder', then? I don't have any strong feelings either way. "Footbridge" is obviously more generic and I guess it's the technically correct choice, but "netwinder" is more likely to mean something to the majority of peop

Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Chris Rutter
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Philip Blundell wrote: > I'm pretty sure "netwinder" is good for all three of these. Other than that, > sounds fine. Most of the other platforms aren't suitable for standard Debian > installs anyway, being weirdo embedded-type targets, so I reckon covering > just > the Fo

Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Philip Blundell
>There is, as far as I can tell, no central implementation of a `subarch >name finder'; boot-floppies, anXious, update-modules, kernel-package, >and so on, all do it individually, their own way. I don't know whether >it's worth trying to go one better than that and provide some sort of >trivial pr

Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Philip Blundell
>Hmm, I run a complete potato on my shark. Yes, good point, Shark does need adding to the list. I don't think it has anything in common with any other machine so it needs its own sub-architecture name ("shark" seems appropriate). p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subj

Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Alexander Schulz
> > EBSA285-> ? > > Rebel-Netwinder-> netwinder > > Chalice-CATS -> ? > > I'm pretty sure "netwinder" is good for all three of these. Other than that, > sounds fine. Most of the other platforms aren't suitable for standard Debian > installs anyway, being weirdo embedde

Re: boot-floppies missing -fPIC?

2000-09-02 Thread Philip Blundell
>Building boot-floppies with language choosing turned on, whinges appear >about ARM_PC_R24 from iconv.so, which is compiled thus: > > (medusa) usr/src/boot-floppies/utilities/dbootstrap/langs make iconv.so > gcc -shared -o iconv.so iconv.o -lpython1.5 > >Would I be correct in my ill-informed gues

Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

2000-09-02 Thread Philip Blundell
> EBSA285-> ? > Rebel-Netwinder-> netwinder > Chalice-CATS -> ? I'm pretty sure "netwinder" is good for all three of these. Other than that, sounds fine. Most of the other platforms aren't suitable for standard Debian installs anyway, being weirdo embedded-type targets