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
>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
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
>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
>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
> > 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
> 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
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Philip Blundell wrote:
> Let's stick with just `acorn' for now and see what happens. I think
> Archimedes/A680/A5000 can certainly share one set of modules. RiscPC
> obviously needs different ones but confusion should be minimal - call them
> `acorn32' if you like.
Okay
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Rutter writes:
>onto modules; for this reason, it seems we need a system like m68k, where
>we'd have /etc/modutils/arch/arm.{netwinder,acorn,...}.
Yes.
>If both the A5000, RiscPC and later hardware can all be accommodation under
>one set of modules, I would p
The various varieties of ARM architecture hardware most certainly don't have
a standard set of mappings from common module aliases `soundcore', etc.
onto modules; for this reason, it seems we need a system like m68k, where
we'd have /etc/modutils/arch/arm.{netwinder,acorn,...}.
There's a bash func
10 matches
Mail list logo
