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

Re: 2.6.12 debian powerpc kernels and ppc64 ...


On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:04:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like testers who want to test new powerpc kernels on ppc64 machines :
> These i have uploaded here :
>   http://people.debian.org/~luther/ppc64/kernel-image-2.6.12-sven_1_powerpc.deb
>   http://people.debian.org/~luther/ppc64/kernel-image-2.6.12-sven64_1_powerpc.deb
> They are built out of the 2.6.12 debian kernel subversion package, but built
> with the ubuntu glibc and gcc-4.0 packages which do support biarch, something
> we don't (yet) have in debian.
> sven is the powerpc flavour, and sven64 is the new pseries flavour which is
> smp, and which will replace all the power3, power3-smp, power4 and power4-smp
> flavours. (and yes, we are killing the non-smp versions of those kernels).

cool. i tried sven64 on a powermac 7,2 without success. the early printk
(ugly) black lines stop at:

smp_core99_setup_cpu 0 done
Linux ppc64


nothing much happens then, except the fan starts blowing full speed, and
then the machine reboots.

also, it would be nice to provide the kernel-headers too, so we can
compile -modules packages. and would the packages be named -sven?

and yes, it would also be important to distribute the source package of
this kernel-image, and fully describe what steps were needed to build it
(buildinfo.gz is rather short on this atm).

> Later will follow a pseries-power4 flavour which optimizes for power4 (no idea
> if this brings something or not though), as well as a legacy-iseries flavour,
> for pre-power5 iseries machines, if anyone has access to one of those, please
> contact me and see if we can arrange some testing of stuff and such.

ready for testing if a dual ppc970 is of any interest here.

otherwise i fail to see what the following rants bring in. i understand
that you are quite disappointed, but surely debconf is a good place to
discuss the three topics you raise here, rather than enumerate who has
no time and discussing how people think about the severity of their
packages. the three issues are:

  1. upload of the biarch toolchain
  2. ppc64 kernel patches (needs 1.)
  3. machines in the wild (could probably go to -project)

and certainly deserve their own thread/bugreport/whatelse.

bye, paul 

> This means that for 2.6.12 there will be no power3/4 kernels in the archive,
> because the toolchain guys (mostly doko and gotom) didn't yet have time to
> upload the biarch toolchain, and couldn't make any prediction of timeframe for
> it too happen, despite sarge being out over a month now, and ubuntu having it
> for a couple of months. So if you need ppc64 packages urgently, you know who
> to blame for it :)
> I will provide unofficial packages at :
>   http://people.debian.org/~luther/ppc64/
> Hopefully in sync with the debian uploads, altough i may be offline the next
> two weeks. The debian packages will include instructions on how to build those
> yourself also.
> On another side, Manoj seems to consider powerpc support as not important, and
> downgraded bug #318431 to whishlist, and clearly shows no interest in fixing
> this, which means pain for the powerpc upload, as well as problematic for the
> ppc64 packages, so kernel-package is another package you have to patch in
> order to make the ppc64 build happen, thanks Manoj for the pain :)
> And to finish, this was all built for you on a Genesi Pegasos machine, at
> debconf 5 in helsinki, without any test on real ppc64 hardware, or help from
> IBM, who apparently messed up (well, together with our previous DPL i fear)
> what they believed was a debian donation of machines which ended up in
> Augsbourg without anyone in the debian project even being aware of it.

Reply to: