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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:56:34PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > * Aurélien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> > > > Would it be possible to have a list of such proposed architectures?
> > > 
> > > amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-i386 and other variants, sh3/sh4, m32r
> > 
> > ppc64 is not currently a candidate for a separate arch,
> > 
> If that's the case, could you close #263743.

Ah ...

Well, this bug report was done by the (two ?) guys from the unofficial ppc64 project
at alioth, and they have their own need, maybe. I speak as a powerpc porter
interested in ppc64 biarch support, and involved with other ppc64 guys.

Now, i tried to build ppc64 kernels with make-kpkg and a cross compiler, and i
was hit by the exact same bug, and i believe that Tollef's multi-arch support
would also have need of it. 

The official arch name is ppc64 though, at least from the kernel developer's


Sven Luther

Reply to: