Re: Performa 6320CD
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:25:51PM -0500, Rod Ross wrote:
> >Did i see you just volunteer to help me co-maintainer the debian nubus
> >kernel ?
> >Friendly,
> >
> >Sven Luther
> >
>
> Well seeing as how I am unemployed former ISSC/CTG IBM employee why not
Cool. That would be real great, do you have an alioth account ? I can add you
to the kernel project, and the nubus kernels is the only one remainign in
kernel-patch-powerpc-2.4.27, since we dropped 2.4 for generic powerpc, and
apus also moved to 2.6, so there is no chance to break something else.
> ! I must admit I am acquainted with debian build kernel automation ( I
> have been making my own for 7401 ppc on debian with make-kpkg for years
> ). I avoid bitkeeper at all costs. Also, I am confused by the build
> process on nubus. I understand all modules must be built into kernel and
> a fake mach header must be patched in ( for mklinux boot loader ) but I
> feel something was lost (ppp device ttyS0 , audio etc ) in the transfer
> to debian's source code from the bitkeeper repository and kernel the
> nubus-pmac.sourceforge.net project was using . I did download ( some
Well, the nubus kernel was only a proof of concept, i actually applied (and
cleaned up a bit so they would apply) they would apply, and took the config
file known to work from Mr Knight (?) at the begining of the year, and called
for testers, but since nobody reported any result for something like 6 month
afterward, until recently, i didn't dare touch it much. I am sure a new patch
snapshot is needed, and the configuration can be tweaked a lot, but having no
hardware and nobody to test the kernel in question, i couldn't say much apart
that it kinda worked for the few who tested it, as i surprisingly found out
later.
> months ago ) the debian nubus source and patch but was unable to get a
> proper build. The build completed but the mach kernel header was lacking
> from the kernel and the kernel appeared to big. I guess it is time I got
Ah, did you look at the right place (arch/ppc/appleboot/Mach\ Kernel or
something such ?). The best is to take the debian kernel package and build
using it, since it is known to produce a somewhat working kernel.
> back to trying to build nubus again. The boot process only worked using
> mklinux bootloader for me and I tried them all. I realise a different
Yeah, known problem, altough there is some hope in emile, but we will see. I
was told about it in february.
> boot loader ( other than mklinux ) is needed for debian to accept it
> because it is not free. Also the whole system depends on macos for
> booting and this would need changing and certainly it is above my head.
> So perhaps this nubus arch should just fade away ( like old cowboy ). If
Well, as m68k macs are still supported, there is no reason really. The port is
not so far off to get something working, only someone with a bit of love and
care who has hardware (and time :).
> you decide to proceed with me, please remember these machines are slow
> and I prefer to build on them rather than cross compile so work on these
> machines is rather slow.
>
> Linux version 2.4.27-nubus (horms@aya.lab.ultramonkey.org) (gcc version
> 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-12)) #1 Mon May 16 18:48:55 JST 2005
> processor : 0
> cpu : 601
> revision : 0.2 (pvr 0001 0002)
> bogomips : 59.80
> machine : PowerMac,NuBus
> motherboard : PDM MacRISC
> detected as : 0 (<NULL>)
> pmac flags : 00000000
> memory : 24MB
> pmac-generation : NuBus
>
> Above machine is a 6116CD powerpc
>
> I have 2 other machines ( they have more memory etc ) they are 6115CD
> powerpc same motherboard ( 6100 style )
>
> I thought Simon was maintainer ?
Well, he maintains the stable powerpc kernels, while i am more taking care of
the unstable and etch ones, altough we mostly work as a team.
> Sven, I would like to help maintain but I know I am not as knowlegable
> as you so bear with me please if you would have me help you.
Well, you have the hardware, i have not, and my time is little, I would be
very glad for you to jump in and help out on this, and will help you as best
i can.
First step i believe is to build the unstable/etch kernel and boot it, and
then adjust the configfile to add the missing bit. Then the more serious work
begin to track half a year of patches and see what can be added or not. The
summum would be a 2.6 port, but well, a working 2.4.x kernel would already be
nice, and will probably get us a debian-installer rather quickly.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: