On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 17:41 -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:39:16AM +0100, Martin wrote: > > As far as I know nothing has happened for precisely the same reason that > > sparc32 had to be dropped - there isn't anyone to work on the kernel. > > Without that then a separate port isn't going to get too far, but if > > there was some one / some people who were willing to work on it, there > > wouldn't need to be a separate port... > > Actually, there would be unless you add additional CPU emulation to > Linux. Sorry - I don't follow. Presumably you are making reference to emulating the few instructions that are in SPARC V9 but not in SPARC V8. In my opinion that's a fairly minor issue. Last I looked the sparc binaries were being built for V8 and the libraries in which it would make an appreciable difference have V9 versions available. Essentially /if/ there was someone who was willing to handle kernel development for sparc32, things could (more or less) continue as they have been. At least, that's my impression.
> Chris is suggesting the only viable option. I don't think so, see above. The one port / two kernel approach has been working well, an extra port seems unnecessary. Cheers, - Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]