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 :)
> 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...
> prompted the user about patching in the Mac patch. The main reason at that
> time: head.S wasn't merged yet and the Mac head.S broke on Amiga. That's
> 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.
If we want to support sun3 it might be more difficult :)
> 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 :)
--
You do{} stuff. Then it's $done. Then you die().
Reply to: