De: Jeramy B Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I think that with Darwin in development and mkLinux R1 coming
> soon, the
> impetus for a Hurd-PPC won't be very high. The microkernel
> unix for PPC pool
> is already crowded. Visit mkLinux.org for more info on
Only that MkLinux and Dar
I think that with Darwin in development and mkLinux R1 coming soon, the
impetus for a Hurd-PPC won't be very high. The microkernel unix for PPC pool
is already crowded. Visit mkLinux.org for more info on theirs. The Apple ite
is dead.
- Original Message -
From: Hartmut Koptein <[EMAIL PRO
> I didn't see this in the archives, so I'd thought I'd ask:
>
> Is anyone working on/thinking of porting HURD to powerpc?
A 'port' is on the way or allready available, but not (yet) for
debian. This will be done after the release of potato.
MfG,
Hartmut
De: Chris Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Is anyone working on/thinking of porting HURD to powerpc?
I follow the HURD kernel cousin bulletin... what I've read there is
that Hurd for now is strictly x86, even if it is being made with portability
in mind. The ultimate goal is that Hurd
I didn't see this in the archives, so I'd thought I'd ask:
Is anyone working on/thinking of porting HURD to powerpc?
TIA,
cbb
Hi all,
the www.rtlinux.org place doesn't seem to give any information on the
rtlinux port for ppc. But in the RTLinux manifesto they speak about a ppc
port, so ?
thanks in advance.
Xavier Grave
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
33 (0) 1 69 15 79 59
,/{}
,/ {|
,
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:58:19AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:46:41AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I never said it needed
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:46:41AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I never said it needed to be rejected, I just said add #if's around it,
> > > > which was
>
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:46:41AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > >
> > > I never said it needed to be rejected, I just said add #if's around it,
> > > which was
> > > contructive and solved both problems. You cannot have it in regmach
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> >
> > I never said it needed to be rejected, I just said add #if's around it,
> > which was
> > contructive and solved both problems. You cannot have it in regmach64.h
> > even with
> > the #if's around it for sparc, I tried it and i
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:30:37AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > >
> > > As I said before commenting that out will break sparc, please add "#ifdef
> > > __sparc__" around the function instead.
> >
> > Huh ???
> >
> > Ok, but it makes
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> >
> > As I said before commenting that out will break sparc, please add "#ifdef
> > __sparc__" around the function instead.
>
> Huh ???
>
> Ok, but it makes no sense to have regwbe for sparc in mach64im.c, and having
> regw,regr and
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 04:04:41AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 03:23:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > > > > And another mistake in the patch, should have waited a bit more
> > > > > before posting,
> > >
'Dread Pirate' Nick Rusnov wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I was wondering if it is still possible to somehow do a "manual" install from
> base2_2.tgz using an existing Linux/PPC installation? I tried to follow the
> minihowto thing, but wasn't terribly sucessful (that is, base2_2.tgz from
> potato-c
14 matches
Mail list logo
