Re: PPC64 port status
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi, William,
William Bonnet wrote:
> ./ Is there a defined "minimal" target for the PPC64 port ? I have
> understood that VMX support is not enabled [1] (please tell me if i am
> wrong). But VMX is not the only optional feature from PowerPC64
> standard, and some CPUs like e5500 do not implement some optional
> opcodes that are used by packages currently available from the ports
> archive. So i would like to know what is the target, and if it is
> possible to consider supporting the "most generic PPC64 target", just
> like it is done for x86 archs ?
I'm planning that ppc64 binary packages will be replaced to ones built without VMX options,
in order to be also supported non-VMX CPU machines like e5500 one.
But it is difficult to be distinguished from packages which were built after 2014-03-01.
So, I'm planning that almost all ppc64 binary packages will be rebuilt as binNMU.
I have already given binNMU command for only ppc64 port to wanna-build DB at the last Friday,
but there are many many source packages, that command takes long long time.
Wait a moment.
> ./ I would like to know please if there are some active work on the
> PowerPC64 ports ? If so I'd like to join the effort, and help either to
> port, or tests packages on e5500 boards. I would appreciate to get in
> touch with the PPC64 to know what kind of help is most needed, and
> figure out if I can do something (i.e. do you need acces to a porterbox,
> or whatever ?)
I want to construct a ppc64 porterbox chroot on partch.debian.org (a POWER7 machine),
if recommendation from DD and recognitions are obtained.
Best regards,
- --
Hiroyuki Yamamoto
A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA 91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=Y1Y7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: