> > The PPP trouble seemed due to a kernel/pppd version mismatch, and I've
> > heard nothing to refute that.
>
> So ppp_2.4.0f-1_powerpc.deb doesn't work with 2.4.0-test kernels? I don't
> believe this is the case, because the README.Debian mentions something about
> 2.3.99-pre*. If there are si
Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > ... Is there any chance to recover the original topic?
>
> Sorry, can you remind me what the original topic was? I thought we just
> went off philosophizing on the principles of open source management ...
>
> The PPP trouble seemed due to a kernel/pppd version mismatch,
Adrian Cox wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Having five people maintaining five PPC trees and occasionally sending
> > patches to
> > Linus seems the wrong way to maintain an architecture, and an implicit
> > resignation to the total worthlessness of any PPC material in the stock
> > tree at
> ... Is there any chance to recover the original topic?
Sorry, can you remind me what the original topic was? I thought we just
went off philosophizing on the principles of open source management ...
The PPP trouble seemed due to a kernel/pppd version mismatch, and I've
heard nothing to refute
... Is there any chance to recover the original topic?
Sergio
> > > Maybe this is related to Eric Raymond's "curse of the gifted" post, and we
> > > really
> >
> > What Eric Raymond? Never seen him on this list ...
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/
That one... I was just wondering what he had contributed to the PPC kernel
(you may color me heretic here).
Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > Maybe this is related to Eric Raymond's "curse of the gifted" post, and we
> > really
>
> What Eric Raymond? Never seen him on this list ...
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/
I understand ESR is one of the great figures of Open Source and currently
working on an enhanced co
> > From what I've heard, sparc(64) support in stock is pretty good, m68k too,
>
> Not m68k AFAIK. As long as I've known about it, it's always needed patches to
> even build, let alone run. At least for Amigas, dunno about Macs (the subarch
> issue again).
Macs?? Need even more patches. And they
First off: I don't think having a complete code fork helps anyone.
> Having five people maintaining five PPC trees and occasionally sending
> patches to
> Linus seems the wrong way to maintain an architecture, and an implicit
> resignation to the total worthlessness of any PPC material in the st
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Having five people maintaining five PPC trees and occasionally sending
> patches to
> Linus seems the wrong way to maintain an architecture, and an implicit
> resignation to the total worthlessness of any PPC material in the stock tree
> at
> all!
One problem is keeping
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > > On a "philosophical" note, since they are so close to working, I'd
> > > prefer to use stock kernels and bug report against those, with as little
> > > patching as possible, it seems this will hasten the day when unpatched
> > > kernels will be usable across more plat
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> > On a "philosophical" note, since they are so close to working, I'd prefer to
> > use stock kernels and bug report against those, with as little patching as
> > possible, it seems this will hasten the day when unpatched kernels will be
> > usable
>
>I have found the stock 2.4.x kernel comes and goes as to whether or not it
>works with PPC. I have had best results syncing up with the bitkeeper
>respository at fsmlabs (Paul's webpage has a reference to it). It seems to
>have the pmac support in it now, and it usually works.
>
>I have found
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On a "philosophical" note, since they are so close to working, I'd prefer to
> use stock kernels and bug report against those, with as little patching as
> possible, it seems this will hasten the day when unpatched kernels will be
> usable across more platforms.
I wouldn
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:09:56PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> But since PPP isn't working, we're not there yet, and I'll go with one of
> the PPC-specific trees, maybe bitkeeper as you suggested. It'll be about
> a week before I can try again.
The bitkeeper free tends to track the official
David Brown wrote:
> I have found the stock 2.4.x kernel comes and goes as to whether or not it
> works with PPC. I have had best results syncing up with the bitkeeper
> respository at fsmlabs (Paul's webpage has a reference to it). It seems to
> have the pmac support in it now, and it usually w
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Have you tried an earlier 2.3/4 kernel? I've been using ppp 2.3.11 with that
> > series of kernels without problems.
>
> Really? I've had this problem since the first 2.3 kernel I could get to boot,
> wh
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> > I just built and installed a 2.4.0-test6 kernel, and with the attached
> > patch it builds and boots just fine. The only trouble is that PPP
> > doesn't work.
> >
> > So I got the binary ppp PPC package from woody, which is version
> > 2.4.0f-1
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> I just built and installed a 2.4.0-test6 kernel, and with the attached
> patch it builds and boots just fine. The only trouble is that PPP
> doesn't work.
>
> So I got the binary ppp PPC package from woody, which is version
> 2.4.0f-1, and the changelog.gz file mentions
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I just built and installed a 2.4.0-test6 kernel, and with the attached
> patch it builds and boots just fine.
Oops, forgot the attached patch. :-)
-Adam P.
--- 2.4.0-test6/arch/ppc/kernel/pmac_time.c Mon Jul 17 11:18:05 2000
+++ linux/arch/ppc/kernel
Greetings,
I just built and installed a 2.4.0-test6 kernel, and with the attached
patch it builds and boots just fine. The only trouble is that PPP
doesn't work.
So I got the binary ppp PPC package from woody, which is version
2.4.0f-1, and the changelog.gz file mentions things which require 2.3
21 matches
Mail list logo
