Re: debian opteron support status query
Goswin,
(see my inlined comments below)
On 23 Jan 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Date: 23 Jan 2004 02:14:33 +0100
> From: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
> To: Bharath Ramesh <bramesh@vt.edu>
> Cc: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: debian opteron support status query
> Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:15:06 -0600 (CST)
> Resent-From: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org
>
> Bharath Ramesh <bramesh@vt.edu> writes:
>
> > Hi I am interested in knowing the current status of debian support for
> > amd64. The reason I am interested is that in the near future I will be
> > acquiring a dual opteron machine. As I am used to debian I would like to
> > stick to it rather than use other version of Linux. I would also like to
> > know where I can look to find some documentation on how upto date is the
> > document from debian.org/ports/amd64. If someone could point me to good
> > reference I would really appreciate it. I am currently not subscribed to
> > this mailing list would really appreciate it if you could copy the reply
> > to me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bharath
>
> Its work in progress.
>
> Currently you can install and use debian-i386 just fine and install a
> biarch (i386+amd64) mixed system preferably as chroot from there.
>
> If you have some spcial needs its easy to get those working as 64 bit
> but for something like a full desktop system you will have to stick to
> mostly 32 bit packages untill more is ported. But that works fine with
> debian i386 stable.
>
By degian i386, are you referring to woody? I recall
seeing varying (perhaps motherboard-dependent?) comments
on which revision of the linux kernel tree to build from
for optimal amd64 functionality in a 32-bit system---would
that be different from the optimal linux kernel tree for
an i386+amd64 biarch system? Or are you saying to just
simply use whatever kernel is packaged with woody?
Thanks,
Don
> MfG
> Goswin
>
> PS: I wouldn't yet use the 64bit part for production use, still too
> much changes going on in the design and we offer no compatibility to
> what might proove a better design next month.
>
>
>
Reply to: