Debian on Fuloong (was: porterboxes vs. qemu)

To: fxzhang <fxzhang@ict.ac.cn>
Cc: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian on Fuloong (was: porterboxes vs. qemu)
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 02:39:17 +0100
Message-id: <20100207013916.GA11393@mails.so.argh.org>
Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, fxzhang <fxzhang@ict.ac.cn>, debian-mips@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <4B6A3835.1000501@ict.ac.cn>
References: <658802.61908.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20100204082720.6142b0de@epicfail.kgoetz.id.au> <4B6A3835.1000501@ict.ac.cn>

* fxzhang (fxzhang@ict.ac.cn) [100204 03:00]:
> It has been solved for quite some time. A binutils patch will do the  
> work. Lemote uses build farm of Fuloong daily stably.

Another question: Which kernel do you recommend? Is a standard 2.6.32
enough to run stable?


Cheers,
Andi

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Debian on Fuloong (was: porterboxes vs. qemu)
  - From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

References:
- Re: porterboxes vs. qemu
  - From: <jscottkasten@yahoo.com>
- Re: porterboxes vs. qemu
  - From: Karl Goetz <karl@kgoetz.id.au>
- Re: porterboxes vs. qemu
  - From: fxzhang <fxzhang@ict.ac.cn>

Prev by Date: Re: porterboxes vs. qemu
Next by Date: Re: Debian on Fuloong (was: porterboxes vs. qemu)
Previous by thread: Re: serial console on Longsoon 2E
Next by thread: Re: Debian on Fuloong (was: porterboxes vs. qemu)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread