Re: several messages
Gayle Lee Fairless dixit:
>IIRC, it was possible for me to boot the machine into the 68000 by
>disabling the 030 board. That meant that I had to sacrifice the memory
Yes, but Linux/m68k wants a 020 at least.
Bob dixit:
>I'm almost afraid to ask...but is there a "roadmap" to bring debian
>back to m68k (updates and everything) or is it more for knowledgable
>debian/linux users?
We stick to Debian proper as much as possible and sensible. We will
live on Debian-Ports for now, but that one has recently gained a
.debian.org subdomain, so I wonder whether s̲o̲m̲e̲ amount of integration
(not reïntegration though) will follow.
>If it is logistics and cpu power in regards to compiling in 68k code
>holding it up, do you need more machines building packages or tools?
No, it’s manpower plus skillset.
As for d-i: I don’t know whether there are any plans to work on it.
It’s said to use to work. I’ve personally done very few work on d-i
or with d-i, m68k or otherwise, and I don’t particularily like it
either, and just running debootstrap directly is less error-prone.
Plus, d-i calls debootstrap anyway, and both need an installable
distribution (which sid is not) anyway (d-i additionally needs a
stabler distribution to find its own modules, unless you build the
“monolith” image which I like much, and to build which is about the
extent of my non-m68k d-i work, since those images aren’t built by
the d-i team, you have to do that yourself, and I do so for @work).
Finn Thain dixit:
>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> To be more exact, the kernel currently panics when trying to boot on a
>> 68020 or 68030 CPU. This has been fixed in 3.15, so if anyone wants to
>> boot Linux on a 020 or 030, they'll have to wait for 3.15.
>
>Actually, they can get it in recent 3.x.y (-stable) releases:
>v3.10.37, v3.12.18, v3.13.10, v3.14.1. I'm told that it also appears in
tg@ara5:~ $ uname -a
Linux ara5.mirbsd.org 3.13-1-m68k #1 Debian 3.13.10-1 (2014-04-15) m68k GNU/Linux
So this is already in Debian then. Well, good! ☻
bye,
//mirabilos
--
<igli> exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea.
<igli> just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic.
<igli> it's like anti-design. <mirabilos> that too… may I quote you on that?
<igli> sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;)
Reply to: