Re: anyone successful in compiling kernel 2.4.0-testx ?
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Robert Martinovic wrote:
> Slightly off-topic, but i'm a regular in #e on efnet,
> and the attitude of developers towards non-intel
> machines is pretty low. It does look like we need to
> raise the profile of alpha's, and work with the teams
> working on other archs to get a better deal.
I agree...either that, or we just take over the port (which I'm becoming
tempted). I'm still hoping that one of them will realise "just because we
don't have one on our desk (or haven't plugged in the one that I have in
the garage) doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile". I guess "the coolness
factor" of getting Linux ported to other archs wore off and those of us
with more than one Alpha (I've got three and one that I loaned out) are
left to fend for ourselves.
> IA64 - and how many people do they think will be able
> to afford one of these when they come out? All that
> effort for a platform that hasn't even been released
> yet.
I know. I mean, I'm anxious to play with an IA64 (where did they pull the
name "Itanium" from anyway), but I *KNOW* that I won't be able to afford
one until long after they're initially released. I still think that most
people honestly believe that the pricing structure for IA64 chips will be
akin to the current chips that are out...they'll be sadly mistaken when
the time comes. Even Intel has stated that the initial releases will be
price-targeted for the server market.
> I have tried tests 4-7 and all of them have failed. To
> be honest, I don't trust myself to compile and install
> a kernel the non-debian way, so i'll wait until i can.
I can help you through that if you'd like. I would like to get a copy of
your .config and any error messages that you've run into (especially
unresolved symbols). I just tried the test8-pre1 patch and got two
unresolved symbols at the end (big shock: they're the same two that were
missing since test5...that's progress for ya).
I can probably whip up a patch for my problems and yours in one fell
swoop, assuming trivial to moderate issues are to blame.
C
Reply to: