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

Re: review wanted of new Debian X FAQ entry

On 5 Mar 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di 04-03-2003, om 22:24 schreef Geert Uytterhoeven:
> [added m68k-build@nocrew.org to the Cc list; -x and -powerpc should
> probably be removed, so setting reply-to]
> > > There are actually some 2.4 kernels available for m68k, but due to an
> > > issue related to glibc[1] that started somewhere in the glibc-2.2 area,
> > > they don't boot.
> > > 
> > > There used to be a bug report on glibc regarding that issue, which was
> > > rather quickly reassigned to the kernel-patch-2.4.7-m68k package. Since,
> > > to date, nobody ever solved the issue, the latter package has now been
> > > removed from the archive.
> > 
> > What's the real problem? I'm running 2.4.20 (from Linux/m68k CVS) on my Amiga,
> > with glibc-2.2.5-3? Or is this version glibc too old to exhibit the problem?
> No, it is not; according to the bug report, problems started with glibc
> 2.2.4.
> I must admit that I personally never tried running a 2.4 kernel on my
> m68k box, since I did not find the time back then to try it out, and did
> not hear any success reports from people running 2.4 on m68k (not on
> debian-m68k@lists.debian.org, on m68k-build@nocrew.org, or in
> comp.os.linux.m68k). In fact, yours is the first success report I ever

Ah, I no longer read those mailing lists and newsgroups...

> heard. Also, I vaguely remember something about this bug being
> Mac-specific, but I might have been dreaming about that part.

That's possible...

> Are you running Debian on that particular box? If not, the problems
> could be Debian-specific...

What else would I be running? ;-) For m68k, there's really not much choice...



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Reply to: