Re: m68k bootloader package(s)?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:44:46AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:17:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:41:16PM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > > > > Right now the amiga and mac m68k bootloaders don't exist in the debian
> > > > > archive. This probably makes sense, because they aren't linux programs.
> > > > > However, it makes locating them and making them available for cdroms and
> > > > > such more trouble.
> > > > >
> > > > > The total size is about 2MB.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do ya'll think, should I put them in a package for convenience or
> > > > > just leave them on a website?
> > > >
> > > > I would recomend uploading them to contrib. After all, if i remember
> > > > well, both amiboot and apusboot are GPLed software, which just need a
> > > > foreign toolchain to build. The same will go for miboot, once we have
> > > > reimplemented the first boot stage of it.
> > >
> > > They should (are?) build with gcc, just not on the autobuilders.
> >
> > No, stuff built with non-free java have been in contrib previously, so i
> > don't think that having a foreign OS builded stuff there should be a
> > problem. I don't think they are autobuilt anyway.
>
> I ment the bootloaders, not the stuff in contrib. If its compiled with
> gcc under AmigaOS that should be good enough for main.
Nope, main should be buildable with stuff from main.
> > > Don't forget to include the needed libs + sources (ixemu.library for
> > > amiboot, right?) linked in.
> >
> > Any idea what the licence for those are ?
>
> A few days back someone saied its GPL now. I had in mind that it was
> Public Domain or free for non-commercial use years back, many years
> back.
Ok, i can investigate, i have good contact with at least a part of the
remaining amiga folk.
> > > > See the thread about boot loaders i started, and the legal problems that
> > > > have to do with it. This means that debian-installer in main will not be
> > > > able to build depend on them, which is a shame, but we may create a
> > > > debian-installer-contrib or whatever, which will build the needed stuff
> > > > for them, as joeyh suggested.
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea how this can be regrouped into debian-cd or whatever
> > > > later on.
> > > >
> > > > Friendly,
> > > >
> > > > Sven Luther
> > >
> > > Is non-autobuildable a reason for contrib? As long as its a free
> > > toolchain and Debian has the source ...
> >
> > As long as debian has the source, and that the source is free, then it
> > is good for contrib, no matter how you build it. Look at the java
> > situation for example.
>
> But why not main?
Because main cannot build-depend on stuff out of main.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: