Re: New Woody 2.3.2 boot images for sparc, need testing...
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 04:40:51PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Ben Collins <email@example.com> writes:
> > These are based on the latest CVS of boot-floppies. The major change is
> > that the sun4u images are built from the 2.4.4 kernel images. The best
> > part about this is that this means that should support Blade 100/1000
> > (don't hold me to this, I can't test them) since they are synced with
> > vger CVS as of today. The sparc32 images are still based on 2.2.19.
> Oy. Is it really worth it to jump to 2.4.x just for blade?
> Is the 2.4.4 kernel in testing at all? If not, could it be uploaded
> with urgency HIGH to get it into testing?
Absolutely. It was worth upgrading auric to 2.4.x because of the
stability issues. No, neither the 2.2.19 images, nor the 2.4.4 images
are in testing. The 2.2.19 image needs one bug fix. The 2.4.4 images
were 9 days old, now they are 1 day old again...so time is the only
issue. I'll get new 2.2.19 images uploaded tonight.
> > You'll notice that the sun4u rescue image is 2880k. I know that sparc's
> > don't have 2880k floppies, but then again, most ultrasparc's that I have
> > used can't boot from floppy anyway. You'll need to netboot with the
> > provided tftp image, unless you know how to create a bootable CD with
> > the provided files (isn't too hard).
> So you're completely dropping 1440k floppies?
Read that, dropping 1440k floppy support for sun4u (not sparc32 like
sun4c, sun4m, sun4d). It's not like the support was used much anyway.
The 2.4.4 sun4u images wont fit on a 1440k image, so I have no choice.
> BTW, my only woody box is a SPARC, so I've been doing the
> boot-floppies source/binary builds on that.
Yeah. That's why I'm just worrying about sun4u, since I can test those.
Let me know if there are any oddities with sparc32 boot.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` firstname.lastname@example.org -- email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org '