Re: [buildd] Machines upgraded
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:41:05AM -0500, Larry Moore wrote:
> > > > > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > > > > etch-m68k:
> > > > I tried 2.6.21 and .22, but reverted to 2.2.25 because I couldn't get X
> > > > running.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm not running X on those machines as those are autobuilders... ;)
> >
> > Thats correct, and crest and kullervo use the same kernels. But it would
> > still be interesting to know what is needed to get X running with current
> > kernels. Maybe somebody could start a wiki page with successful combinations
> > of hard- and software? I wouldn't mind to have a working X on my Amiga
> > again, even though I will probably not use it. The same is true for mac and
> > atari I guess, any volunteers?
> >
> > And if something is missing in the kernel, please let me know or send a
> > patch.
>
> Kernel should be OK, unless you're using one of those frame buffer
> device drivers we `lost' in the conversion from 2.4 to 2.6.
>
> E.g. for Amiga native graphics, the main issue is that current xorg
> doesn't support bitplanes (AFAIK). The same is true for Atari.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
what's the alternative if there's no kernel framebuffer?
--
I recommend that the Statue of Liberty be supplemented by a Statue of
Responsibility on the west coast.
Viktor E. Frankl
Reply to: