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

Re: debian kernel m68k patches for 2.6.28



On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 09:39:17PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:51:32AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 03:42:53AM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > 
> > > > The debian 2.6.28 kernel has hit sid, so it's probably time to 
> > > > update the m68k patches.
> > > > 
> > > > So how many of these [1] patches should go into the debian kernel?
> > > > Everything that's not commented, POSTPONED, or PRIVATE?
> > > 
> > > Looks like you want all that are not commented or PRIVATE in the series file. 
> > > But as Geert mentioned, there may be more in git. 
> > >  
> > > > If anyone else wants the job, please jump right on it. ;)
> > > 
> > > You go ahead :-) Last time I tried, I could not even build a kernel image from 
> > > the Debian release source kit. 
> > 
> > http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPackage
> > http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/kernel/dists/sid/linux-2.6/debian/config/m68k/README.build?rev=12852&view=markup
> > 
> > * build cross compiler
> 
> Which version are you using, 4.3? I built it according to your instructions

I used 4.2, since 4.3 had the ice you described.

> on a freshly installed lenny box (with some gcc packages from unstable). The
> circular dependencies are not so nice, but it seems I got it installed. Do
> you want to add amd64 packages to your repository?

If you want. If I really thought anyone cared, I could build amd64 
packages too. ;)

> I get an ICE for linux 2.6.28-1

Me too, looks like it's fixed [1] in 4.4, at least. Also works fine in 4.2.

Unfortunately, it looks like [2] isn't.

[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37052
[2] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37053

Peace,

Stephen

-- 
Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!
<stephen@marenka.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: