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

Re: if you care about debian on powerpc, please react ...

On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:57:43AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 06:00:48PM +0100, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > 
> >   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=394971
> >   #394971: rootskel: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules.
> > 
> > Which was submited 29 days ago, with a patch and not commited.
> Bonjour Sven,
> it is claimed that the patch you submitted is broken:
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/d-i/trunk/packages/rootskel/src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/?op=log&rev=0&sc=0&isdir=1

Well, the bug and patch has been open since a month, Frans did not comment on
it in all this time, did not apply it when he uploaded 1.42 in the middle of
last week, and didn't give any information about the so called 'brokeness' of
the patch. 

I have tested the patch on my XServe G5 before commiting it, and again before
doing the upload, looked at the order of modules loading on windfarm based
systems like your imac, and drawn the depmod dependency tree to have them load
in the right order, and consulted with benh on this.

So, Frans claims the patch is broken, but gives me absolutely no hint about
what the brokeness is, and didn't even try to give me the chance to provide a
fixed patch before reverting my upload.

So, given the information i have, i can more easily believe that frans
reverted the patch because he was pissed for me making the upload, as the DPL
allowed me to do in his mediation in late may/start of june, than any real
technical reason. But if i am wrong with this, i would gladly provide a fixed
patch, but how can i fix a problem when i have not even an idea of what the
problem is.

> Can you send a fixed patch to the but report? Then, the iMacs users
> could add their support to this patch within the bug report, until we
> get an answer from the d-i team. Also, I just changed the subject of the
> bug as it not only affects the unofficial powerpc64 port, but the official
> powerpc port as well. It may be one reason why this problem has been
> overlooked so far.

The unnofficial port is called ppc64, and may or not be also affected,
powerpc64 is the 64 bit powerpc kernel flavour, as well as the future
architecture for the multi-arch setup and the 64bit userland in the official
powerpc debian port.

> If there is no interst in the debian-installer team to support the
> installation on G5 iMacs, how about making an specific installer? This

I have thought of that, it would mean forking the installer, and some support
of the RM team, at least one of which is hostile to me, i have also played
with the idea of producing a full fork of debian for powerpc, with all the
packages rebuild on a buildd, instead of part of them being built on
developper machines, and bringing a etch with multiarch support to the
powerpc64 users. It is lot of work though, and i had hope that this petty
dispute could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but then, it has been
over 6 months now.

> would introduce the opportunity of supporting the Airport extreme card
> on machines on which the users kept an OSX system, or by asking them to
> insert the installation CD.

Mmm, we can probably support that too, what is the problem ? I have no trouble
with my powerbook, but it has the non-extreme airport card. Did you already
open a bug report about this issue ? Do you have the bug number if this is so


Sven Luther

Reply to: