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

Re: Sarge, kernel-image, and i586-SMP



On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:56:15PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Steaphan Greene wrote:
> 
> >I've been frustrated for a while by the fact that debian doesn't seem to
> >have a kernel to support my router (which is a dual pentium-MMX)
> >out-of-the-box.  I also notice that this seems to still be true (so far)
> >for sarge.  While it is no big deal to roll my own kernel with
> >make-kpkg, it is really a pain to do so every time a new fault is found
> >with the kernel - which has happened a lot lately.
> >
> >Is there a reason why SMP support is only included for 686 and AMD
> >processors?  Am I missing something?  Is there something I can do to
> >help change this for sarge?  Any info would be appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >  
> >
> kernel-image-2.4-686-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.4 on
> PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP.
> kernel-image-2.4-k7-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.4 on AMD K7 SMP.
> kernel-image-2.6-686-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on
> PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP.
> kernel-image-2.6-k7-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on AMD K7 SMP.
> 
> There is no more 586 kernel though. Not even the regular one. The 386
> version is quite slower on a Pentium MMX than an optimized one. Anyway,
> I also had to roll my own kernel for the 586-mmx (2.6.7). I don't think
> it is too big of a deal though since 586 and lower machines are not too
> common anymore.

I would not mind it being slow.  However, since there seems to be
absolutely no SMP support for 586 OR BELOW, I must roll my own or ignore
one of my processors.  That's what bothers me.  Even a 386-smp kernel
would be fine by me.  I just would like to be able to automagically
update my stable kernel whenever needed (like I do on most of my other
machines).  This machine is intended as my stable machine, not my
workhorse (obviously), and I'd like to not have to give it too much
though to make sure it was stable and secure.

...besides, ever compiled the current kernel on a 586? ;)

Yes, I know I could compile it on another machine and make a package,
I'd just like to not have to.  Is there a reason this kernel flavor is
ignored (is it just because they are rare?)?

-- 
Steaphan Greene <sgreene@cs.binghamton.edu>
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt

Attachment: pgpBlGUreJcCT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: