Re: 2.6-test1 on ppc?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Not having tried to compile any recent Linus kernel on powerpc or
> elsewhere, I might be wrong, but from my experience it's always been the
> case that different architectures each had their own development trees and
> their own (rather small) development communities. It's always been up to
> you to figure out where to get cutting edge kernel sources, and to deal
> with problems yourself as they show up. Advice like 'better stick with
> 2.4.21-benh' might just mean that - unless you want to spend your time
> fixing patch rejects or compile errors and risk kernel crashes, just use
> the stable powerpc branch (which happens to be maintained by Ben).
Since I'm not a hacker, I'm willing to compile and test for PowerPC, mainly
because I want a working 2.6.0 kernel when it comes out. Maybe that's wishful
thinking, but I'll do what I can to make it happen. If that means complaining
a bit, I can do that! :-)
> Otherwise, join the exclusive community of kernel developers (they keep
> secret resources such as the linux-kernel and linuxppc-dev mailing lists)
> and join in to the fun.
I call it exclusive because there seems to be a members-only-club mentality
about accepting complaints about simple things like, "It won't compile"
etc....I'm happy to be wrong about this.
> If you're
> not skilled in kernel hacking, why bother with 2.5 or 2.6?
First...I was inspired to start working with this kernel by an article in
Linux Journal in March, 2003
(http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6740). So...
> Another secret piece of information: Linus' tree has always been pretty
> useless on the less popular architectures. Use Alan Cox' branch as a
> starting point if there's no proper powerpc devel tree (which I doubt).
Yeah, but I'm all about vanilla! Ice cream, kernels...
> Not sure what the toolchain stuff is about, do you have any details on
> that?
Yes...well, this is only based on what I've been told...but Module-Init-Tools
is something that the new kernel requires, but woody doesn't have this piece
of software...I've also personally got a funny problem since I've got the
appropriate version of binutils, but the kernel compiler doesn't think so; it
tells me I've got the wrong version. That's what prompted all of this.
Thanks for the insight...
Russell
> Michael
- --
Linux -- the OS for the Renaissance Man
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE/HB7/AqKGrvVshJQRAmZtAKCqnhDYYDqfTA18GrxbR7eicpoBiwCgtMUj
StMMO2UgxM2MCFxLCwplTcw=
=h81O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: