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

Re: Debian-NetBSD for 68k would ease porting issues ?

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Brian Morris wrote:
> my point is that IMHO there would be
> far less chance of debian-68k discontinuing if
> lenny were moved to debian-netbsd-68k instead
> of debian-linux-68k. that would be just for the new
> unstable/testing.

But then we have to migrate from NetBSD to Linux, so I don't see your

> i don't see your logic at all either, maybe we are
> just not communicating.  the port is in danger of dying.

And what would be different when abandoning `debian-linux-68k' and
creating `debian-netbsd-68k'? How much resources do you have available to
work on it?

> the design difference in netbsd is that there is more
> difference than as you say, there is little with linux. but
> it appears that results in fewer higher level differences.


> to reiterate:
> Netbsd: more difference with models ("platform" is i believe the
> proper term) w/in 68k at kernel/toolchain level,

Why more differences?

> less issues at user level with practically no need for any separate
> attention to 68k packages vis a vis any other processors (i386 typically)
> that is why over there they don't build all binary. for the more
> esoteric packages it suffices to test on any architecture/platform.
> if people really think they want/need KDE for 68k they can build it
> themselves (but most likely no one cares to and no one does)

Really? If if compiles and works on ia32, it always compiles and works on

> Linux: little differeence with models w/in 68k , much more difference
> of 68k with other architecture (aka i386).

Really? What big differences are there, besides drivers?

> Netbsd: apparently there are some packages known are Shared on
> the installation images which are the intermediate level where the
> brand of 68k does not matter but 68k matters for prebuilt binaries reason.

What are the problems with `debian-linux-68k':
  - packages don't build:
      o toolchain problems: NetBSD also uses gcc.
      o no m68k assembler: problem would happen on NetBSD, too
      o no m68k support in package (#ifdef issues etc.): problem would
        happen on NetBSD, too
      o missing TLS support: NetBSD may require TLS in the future, too.
  - packages don't work:
      o endianness bugs: found on other big endian platforms, too
      o 32-bit values aligned on 32-bit instead of 16-big boundaries:
        problem would happen on NetBSD, too
      o m68k-specific kernel bugs: should not happen ;-)
  - build daemons can't follow as they're slow: problem would happen
    on NetBSD, too
  - we can use more resources to maintain the port

Any other issues? Apart from the resources item for which I don't know,
I don't think there's any reason why `debian-netbsd-68k' would have less
issues than `debian-linux-68k'.



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: