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
12 matches
Mail list logo
