On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 10:33:32AM -0700, Shyamal Prasad wrote:
> So perhaps the statement needs to be something like
>
> "For users of the powerpc flavour a 2.4 kernel is also provided to
> support Amiga Power-UP (apus) systems, and as a fall back for users
> with external kernel modules that are
> "Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sven> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 07:24:23PM -0700, Shyamal Prasad
Sven> wrote:
>> the G4) you also have the option of choosing a 2.4 kernel in
>> case your hardware is really old. However most hardware built
>> after 2001 sho
> "Rogério" == Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rogério> On Oct 22 2005, Shyamal Prasad wrote:
>> as +little as 600 to 700M for a really basic system, but you'll
Rogério> I question the 600 to 700M figures for a "really basic
Rogério> system". I think that these numbe
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 07:24:23PM -0700, Shyamal Prasad wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> http://www.us.debian.org/ports/powerpc/inst/pmac is quite out of
> date. I use new Mac hardware (G5), and have little experience with
> minimal installs of Debian since potato. Comments on the patch below
> would be a
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 07:24:23PM -0700, Shyamal Prasad wrote:
> http://www.us.debian.org/ports/powerpc/inst/pmac is quite out of
> date. I use new Mac hardware (G5), and have little experience with
> minimal installs of Debian since potato. Comments on the patch below
> would be appreciate
On Oct 22 2005, Shyamal Prasad wrote:
> +1G is probably a realistic minimum disk space required for an
> +experimental Linux system. You might get by with less, perhaps as
> +little as 600 to 700M for a really basic system, but you'll more than
> +likely want more than just the basics.
I question
Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) add a BusID question to the templates
> 2) add the following logic to the .config script:
> (this is psuedocode, don't sweat the syntax, please)
>
> if arch == powerpc:
> FOO=$(lspci | grep VGA)
> switch (wc -l $FOO)
> case 0: prob
> > With your 4.1.0 from two weeks or so back, I didn't have to specify a
> > busid at all. Rage LT Pro, not 128.
>
> Well, I had to for 0pre1v5. Maybe the atimisc driver has more brains that
> the r128 driver...
Maybe. I've not upgraded lately, maybe atimisc now also gets it wrong.
> > It se
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:09:22PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > It's not a question of whether it's useful, it's a question of whether it's
> > NECESSARY. I haven't heard reports about any other architecture
> > *requiring* an explicit BusID in the XF86Config-4 file for the server to
> > work
> It's not a question of whether it's useful, it's a question of whether it's
> NECESSARY. I haven't heard reports about any other architecture
> *requiring* an explicit BusID in the XF86Config-4 file for the server to
> work. If that proves to be the case, I'll add them to the list.
With your 4
Hi,
Branden Robinson writes:
> A BusID was mandatory, and my debconf questions don't handle that
> yet. Having UseFBDev on or off seemed to be harmless either way.
On my Pismo, it's the other way round. Contrary to 4.0.3, the 4.1.0 X
server works nicely without a BusID. However, it requires t
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:10:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Sven wrote:
> > Note, the busid thingy is also usefull on non ppc boxes.
>
> It's not a question of whether it's useful, it's a question of whether it's
> NECESSARY. I haven't heard repor
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Sven wrote:
> Note, the busid thingy is also usefull on non ppc boxes.
It's not a question of whether it's useful, it's a question of whether it's
NECESSARY. I haven't heard reports about any other architecture
*requiring* an explicit BusID in the XF86Con
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 02:22:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I got a head on my G3 tonight and ate some of my own dog food as far as the
> X server goes.
>
> Linux redwald 2.2.18pre21 #1 Mon Nov 20 21:18:03 EST 2000 ppc unknown
> xserver-xfree86 4.1.0-0pre1v5
>
> It has a Rage 128 RE. A B
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:45:54PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> - Kernel 2.2.16 does not want to boot on Lombard
I was unable to boot 2.2.16 when I first tried. I re-rsync'd with Paulus'
archive and it now boots. Something was definately fixed.
Dave Brown
Andrew B. Arthur wrote:
>>- bogomips: 801.18 (PowerBook Lombard 400Mhz)
>> bogomips from the xterm reports: 526
>
>I haven't seen that bug before. Seems strange to me since doesn't GNOME
>get it the same way? At any rate I don't use GNOME currently, so I
>wouldn't really know.
The 800b
Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
> Cheers,
> Sergio
>
> (hardware: PowerBook Lombard G3-400)
>
> 1. Result of booting today's rsync tree:
>
> Machine check in kernel mode. (regs at cb491bf0)
> Caused by (from srr1): Unknown values in srr1
> NIP: D081332C XER: 2000 LR: D0813318 REGS: cb491bf0 TRA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The package currently distributed is 6.1, although 7.1
> was made available long ago. Version 6.1 does not work
> on my laptop (Apple Lombad), so I tried 7.1, compiling
> it with the big endian option. After opening a loopback
> connection, I got the following error
18 matches
Mail list logo
