Re: Separate release for m68k (and The Hurd?)
On 10/18/06, Riccardo <riccardo@kaffe.org> wrote:
Hello,
On Wednesday, October 18, 2006, at 07:25 AM, Brian Morris wrote:
> besides a reasonable list of packages (perhaps a few more than the
> above)
> as far as i can tell there needs some improvement in hardware support
> before anything like a release of etch: in the mac department i feel we
> need Most quadras supported and some MacII types. in unstable should
> be try and get the LC quadras and some '030 powerbooks (they were
> there at some point).
true, apart some broken packages, we have a problem with kernel
support. My original purpose in joing this list is that linux-mac68k on
purplehat died and I watend news on our kernel status (on mac). I want
to make sure that some upstream (or other packages which I hope will
get in cluded in debian) programs which I am involved in compile on
mac68k. But I can do it only if the computers I have are reliable
enough to do this task.
yes, i am pretty much with you there, the same kinds of interests
Sadly, the 2.2 kernel is not up to this task anymore and it had
problems already "back then", so 2.6 is my hope.
perhaps this is asking too much but there is in the archives
a 2.6.8 mac kernel, which on powerpc was the last version for
Sarge, i wonder if that could help. i have not tried to boot with it yet.
> if the pressure gets taken off for the busy work maybe there can be
> some progress if there is sufficient consideration given to upstream
> and
> "sidestream" neighbors, i believe there could be more hope here
> long term than in netbsd which although in better shape now is
> perhaps less well situated to bring in developer influences.
well, NetBSD still works pretty fine on 68k, but I sense a lack of
development for it on the kernel side and the transition to 2.x and 3.x
carried some breakage too. But that is off topic here.
yes, that is partly why i am trying to stick with Debian, however since
there is a movement to make debian port of netbsd, i am not sure
exactly it is completely off topic.
one thing i said here before perhaps bears repeat. there is a nice little
statement over there around how one guy built something like 1000 packages
for 68k this spring. he said he ran his old computer for a month. that
is quite different from how debian does it. but it is sort of like what
Wouter suggested above, like a snapshot occassionally.
maybe that list itself too could be a minimum, lite set of packages suggestive
for stable alternative to etch. anyway in the past there has
been interaction, although it probably would not be formally planned
it should be an available option.
i believe "port" sometimes is too heavily depending on intel stuff, when
port can be also from other debian arches or from same arch another
distro if there is help needed and to be found there. it has been going like
i said more back and forth with ubuntu in powerpc, as well as some
sort of "brain drain" to fink (fink is really debian ported to run in
mac os x, there
are source packages there not in debian proper that could be ported back,
i suppose if they are considered useful, such as source/building tools).
how this relates to the topic is that a separate release could be a good
thing if it is set up to facilitate more better communication links in a wider
sense. that is Debian proper is too big to be flexible enough for that, but
if it were going then maybe some how it would catch on more.
-b
Reply to: