In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>* Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030305 07:30]:
>> uniprocessor sun4m works on some patched 2.4 kernels
>Do you have some hints, which patches and what to be careful about?
>I've severel sparcstation10 available and plan[1] to test th
* Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030305 07:30]:
> uniprocessor sun4m works on some patched 2.4 kernels
Do you have some hints, which patches and what to be careful about?
I've severel sparcstation10 available and plan[1] to test the new
installer on them (network-booting is so nice with them
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be
>"is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32?"
sparc32 isn't a single kernel architecture.
>From what I've seen on the debian-sparc ma
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030301 22:20]:
> > For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be
> > "is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32?"
>
> Architectures that are still having problems with 2.4 should probably
> be dropped. Si
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:00:43AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi
>
> As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that
> there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k
> debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right
> now, since
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For example, I have been away from using sparc, but my question would be
> "is there much sparc32 kernel hacking going on? Is 2.4.x usable on sparc32?"
Architectures that are still having problems with 2.4 should probably
be dropped. Since they aren'
> > But you are right, we should get 2.4 working instead of hacking devfs into
> > or out of d-i...
>
> Sure, but in the mean time we have to make sure there's an installer for
> m68k that actually works. Else we could just as well shut down all m68k
> buildd's, as it will not be worth it anymore.
Op za 01-03-2003, om 00:16 schreef Petter Reinholdtsen:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> > As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that
> > there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k
> > debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right
> >
Op za 01-03-2003, om 05:57 schreef Christian T. Steigies:
> But you are right, we should get 2.4 working instead of hacking devfs into
> or out of d-i...
Sure, but in the mean time we have to make sure there's an installer for
m68k that actually works. Else we could just as well shut down all m68k
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:16:09AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> > As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that
> > there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k
> > debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problema
[Wouter Verhelst]
> As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that
> there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k
> debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right
> now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while D
Hi
As some of you are already aware, there's a problem wrt m68k in that
there's no decent 2.4 kernel for m68k yet. As such, creating an m68k
debian-installer image that actually works is a bit problematic right
now, since debian-installer depends on DevFS quite a lot, while DevFS
will only be foun
On Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 11:17:33PM -0800, David Whedon wrote:
> > Right now, busybox init doesn't work with devfs. I have not
> > looked into what changes are needed to make it work. I agree
> > though, that if we do go this route, we really want to avoid
> > the cost of devfsd,
> >
>
> bustbox
> Right now, busybox init doesn't work with devfs. I have not
> looked into what changes are needed to make it work. I agree
> though, that if we do go this route, we really want to avoid
> the cost of devfsd,
>
bustbox 0.49pre-1 init does work with devfs, at least everything I've seen so
far
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian May wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that devfsd does three tasks (in default
> > configuration):
> >
> > 3. loads kernel modules as required.
> >
> > 3 may or may not be important for boot disks, but don't overlook it...
> > --
>
> Any idea h
> "Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn> Any idea how it does this how does it know if a
Glenn> specific module is needed ?
modprobe does that via /etc/modutils/devfsd (or rather
/etc/modules.conf).
So, the kernel "calls" devfsd, which in turn executes modpr
Brian May wrote:
> My understanding is that devfsd does three tasks (in default
> configuration):
>
> 3. loads kernel modules as required.
>
> 3 may or may not be important for boot disks, but don't overlook it...
> --
Any idea how it does this how does it know if a specific module is
need
> "Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn> I think devfs without devfsd is preferable, i thought
Glenn> devfsd was supposed to be a transitional thing for use to
Glenn> catch situations where devfs didnt handle devices that it
Glenn> should, and that as devf
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> David Whedon wrote:
> > I've been playing with devfs. I'm considering it on the install system for the
> > following reasons:
>
> I've been leaning toward using it too. Same reasons.
>
> > Does anyone have a feeling for whether or not we should include devfsd? My gut
> > f
Luciano Baretta Mandryk wrote:
> > I've been playing with devfs. I'm considering it on the install system for the
>
> do things like libparted work with devfs?
I haven't tried out devfs. Parted operates on block devices (or ANY
file), so in that sense, there is no problem. However, libparted
If you run devfsd then symlinks are created from the old names to the new names:
davidw@meow:~$ ls -la /dev/hda1
lr-xr-xr-x1 root root 33 Feb 21 20:14 /dev/hda1 ->
ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part1
davidw@meow:~$
So programs like libparted can find the device they were looking f
David Whedon wrote:
> I've been playing with devfs. I'm considering it on the install system for the
> following reasons:
I've been leaning toward using it too. Same reasons.
> Does anyone have a feeling for whether or not we should include devfsd? My gut
> feeling is no, as it will cost 20-30k
On Wed Feb 21, 2001 at 10:12:58PM -0800, David Whedon wrote:
> I've been playing with devfs. I'm considering it on the install system for the
> following reasons:
> - allow for entire root filesystem on read-only media (cdrom)
> - cleaner way to build install disks, don't need to be root and mkno
In reference to a message from David Whedon, dated Feb 21:
> I've been playing with devfs. I'm considering it on the install system for the
do things like libparted work with devfs?
randolph
--
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.TauSq.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
I've been playing with devfs. I'm considering it on the install system for the
following reasons:
- allow for entire root filesystem on read-only media (cdrom)
- cleaner way to build install disks, don't need to be root and mknod or copy
form /dev
- it is a saner naming scheme.
- anything else?
25 matches
Mail list logo
