Dan, Can you suggest a version of the 2.3.x kernel that WOULD build and work? Is there a simple way to retrieve it (i.e., one I can get from ftp.us.kernel.org)? I have tried 2.3.34 and found that the 'make menuconfig' and all other ways of simply generating a config were broken for powerpc in ways that I wasn't able to understand. (Looked like a missing endif or some such, but I was never sure even after a couple of hours of study.)
What kernel source version from the "main" tree actually builds and works pretty well for most/all of the 8xx platforms? I am particularly interested in the CLLF supporting kernel. I can live with 2.3.x since I don't need ramdisk support for my intended application. In fact, I'm very interested in the new cramfs I have read about as a solution for our flash based file system. I'll probably dink with that a bit next chance I get. Thanks for any info... a On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Dan Malek wrote: > Brendan John Simon wrote: > > > > How seperate is the Linux/PPC kernel tree to the main kernel tree ? > > It isn't supposed to be, but..... > > > > I download linux-2.2.14 and there is only support for MBX > > > ....I have never merged the later 8xx updates from the 2.3.xx > ttree into 2.2.xx. The amount of change is a concern for a "stable" > tree, and the couple of occasions I had the time to do this the > tree was locked for update with Linus. It is on my "to do" list. > > > > Can support for all the embedded ports be put into the main kernel > > source tree. > > The "main" tree is really the 2.3.xx tree right now, and all of > the 8xx support is there. For some reason, the BitKeeper 2.3.41 > version doesn't build. I fixed a couple of problems, but now I > am wondering if it will build for any PMac platform....... > > > > That way we can all use the latest stable kernel without having to wait > > for you (or someone else) to create a package on the ftp server. > > > The only reason I put things on the server was for people that > couldn't get access to a source tree for some reason. I don't > like to do that, but people got used to it so I continued. I > may continue to do so only for a 2.2.xx version. > > > > also reduces the re-porting of board support packages. > > We don't have board support packages.......It just reminds me > of horrible hacks people make so they don't have to provide > source code. With complete source code available, we have > to find a better way (and use better terminology). > > > > How often is the Linux/PPC kernel for workstations (PowerMacs, etc) > > committed to the main kernel tree ? > > Every day? I have the same complaint most people have expressed > lately. I work in the BitKeeper tree, which is supposed to be > the official PPC tree and one step away from kernel.org. I can't > build it for any of my systems. I have to go looking for something > from Paul or Ben or someone else to get something to work...... > > With 2.4.xx soon to happen, we should all be working from the > latest 2.3.xx tree from kernel.org. If it doesn't work (which > is the case now at least for me), it must be quickly corrected. > > I copied linuxppc-dev on this message....so what's the deal with > all PPC sources? When (and from where) will I be able to download > a kernel tree that I can build for anything? > > Thanks. > > > -- Dan -- Alan Mimms Packet Engines, Inc. Spokane, Washington [99214-0497] USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, The Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, U0 Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? -- Steven Wright? ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
