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

Re: util-linux, kernel and bootup

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Nikita Schmidt wrote:

> As util-linux-2.7.1 has recently been packaged by the original
> maintainer, hwclock has become the official way to talk to the CMOS
> clock.  If somebody is going to port 2.7.1 to alpha (it's a pity that
> I'm bloody busy at the moment and can't do that myself), please take
> into account ftp://genie.ucd.ie/pub/alpha/hwclock/hwclock.diff.  Note
> that this patch has already been submitted to the upstream authors, but
> not to the Debian maintainer - if you send your port diffs to Guy, tell
> him not to propagate hwclock diffs upstream.

I guess this would be me.  I have util-linux-2.7.1 source at home on the
Alpha half compiled, so I guess I should patch it and start the packaging
soon (maybe tonight with all good luck).  I'll fetch your patches now and
at least prepare myself :)

> The switch from clock to hwclock requires appropriate change in
> /etc/init.d/boot file (package sysvinit).  Guy has already filed this as
> a bug against sysvinit, but until it is dealt with we must keep that in
> mind when building sysvinit, boot disks and base.tgz.

This is Pasi's department.  Is the change documented in the READMEs in the
source?  If not, please fill me in so I can make the appropriate changes
on my system when the time comes.

> Remember that a kernel with working RTC driver is required for hwclock
> to work on Alphas.
> I have put together my suggestions about the patch set to be used for the
> kernels, see ftp://genie.ucd.ie/pub/alpha/kernel/ap-2.0.30.diff.gz.  The
> set, now just a single diff file, includes:
> - pre-patch-9 for 2.0.30 from ftp.kernel.org;
> - glibc2-aware version of alpha-patches-2.0.30-0.1 from gatekeeper (some
>   glibc incompatibilities may still remain);
> - assorted fixes.

Ah, great.  Has all of this stuff been fixed in the development kernels
yet?  If so, this may be the appropriate time to switch over.  We've
already beaten the kernel patch issue to death here, so I won't get into
that :)  If the patches are needed, though, then they're needed.  I'll
post a blurb on this on my web page, btw.  Also, I'll go ahead and put all
of the stuff together on my site once it's packaged with a

> Although there is version 0.2 of alpha-patches, it is Jim Paradis'
> release, which is mostly concerned about em86 improvements.  As I don't
> have time to strip glibc1 idiosyncrasies from this new version, my
> patchset is based on 0.1.  I hope it's OK.

I'm sure it is :)  I've looked at Jim's patches already and I agree about
the effort.  I don't know about the rest of the list participants, but I'm
not terribly concerned with em86 right now.  I'm more concerned with
advancing the project than trying to throw Intel stuff on my Alpha, so to
me, em86 can wait.  Eventually, though, this will be an issue, so I've
been trying to keep up with his changes at least enough to know what is
going on :)

Thanks for the work :)

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: