[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Release plans for potato/m68k?

> On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > So I guess what I say is: do we need multiple builders at all? Building
> > Amiga and Atari and VME sets wasn't much of an overhead for me. I assume
> > that nothing broke since the 2.1 release, of course. And I haven't followed
> > the fantasies about graphical install etc. anymore. 
> I can also make my build machine (one of my Q630s - 040@33MHz) accessible to
> the other builders.  It sure would be nice to build on an 060 though :)

Sure, but do we have enough space on kullervo? We need either a mirror of
the whole package tree, or at least the packages that are required for base
and ramdisk. And there's a big advantage in having only one build machine.
If we can build on kullervo and the connection is reasonably fast for you we
should use it. I can't seem to connect properly right now though. 
Kullervo has 400 MB spave in the build partition, that's a bit tight unless
there is a mirror someplace.

A Quadra with 040@33 was what I used last time. And the build area did fit
on a Syjet, including the partial mirror, a backup source tree and at least
one kernel source tree. 
> > Nick patched kernel-package or kernel-diff to always apply the vanilla m68k
> > patch (the Debian 2.2 kernel source probably won't include that) and
> We'll have to make a 2.2.10 kernel source package first, of course...

Sure, does the Mac port use 2.2.10 right now? 

> > solved now, right? So we could merge Jes' and the Mac patch and use that
> > unconditionally like the old m68k patch before. 
> Yeah, as long as head.S is merged it's probably all right.  There are some
> mismatches in the memory management code, and our CVS has a few random extra
> patches applied to it which it probably shouldn't.  Hopefully those issues
> can be resolved.  I can definitely confirm that it's possible to build "fat"
> m68k kernels and boot them on Macs.

We don't need multiplatform kernels, just simple minimal ones :-)
> If we want to support sun3 it might be more difficult :)

That won't be possible with the current user space binaries anyway IIRC.
> > Disclaimer: I've never built kernel packages the Right Way. Unpack some
> > other kernel package, replace kernel, modules and doc and repack with a new
> > name was easier. 
> I've never actually built a kernel on an m68k box...  time to hack make-kpkg
> to support cross-compiling :)

Or go the manual way too :-)


Reply to: