The fact of the matter is that this is just unrealistic. It is simpler (and
takes up less space) to just compile from source on install (in my humble
opinion). Also, compiling has the added advantage of giving positive
recognition to the user of when it just won't work!!! I understand what you
are saying, and for most programs you are exactly dead on--but for this it
just isn't a good idea.
Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Dale Thatcher
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 6:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [plex86] Debian package
>
>
> On Debian there is a system in place to manage kernel modules -
> that's how they
> support things like pcicma and alsa - using their kernel build scripts. A
> version could also be built for each of the stock kernel images.
> Its a really
> cool system and much better than any other I've seen.
>
> thanks,
>
> - Dale
>
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 09:46:45PM -0500, Drew Northup wrote:
> > The problem with binary packages is the explicit kernel version
> dependence.
> > For instance: a module compiled on 2.2.13 won't run on 2.2.6 (&
> vice-versa)
> > even with module versioning turned off _everywhere_. This
> means that any
> > plex86 binaries must be part of an explicit distro
> > _for_that_specific_kernel_ (not just the version--the actual
> compile) and
> > that it must be recompiled for kernel recompiles of the same
> kernel (that
> > even means two kernels of the same version, like two 2.2.6
> kernels--I found
> > this out by trial & crash). Because of these really touchy
> issues, it is
> > best to not even attempt a binary distro of plex86 for any
> LINUX (on Windows
> > it may be possible though.....).
> >
> > Drew Northup, N1XIM
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> > > Of Dale Thatcher
> > > Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 4:43 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [plex86] Debian package
> > >
> > >
> > > There are packages pending for both plex86 and bochs. No point
> > > in duplicating
> > > someone else's work...
> > >
> > > Out of interest why would binary packages be bad?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > - Dale
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 11:11:51AM -0800, Hausheer, Geoffrey wrote:
> > > > The problem is that the license doesn't allow for modification
> > > of the BIOS,
> > > > and that the license says something about "may only be
> > > used/distributed for
> > > > use with plex86/bochs and be used only in the manner
> intended" (that's a
> > > > summary not verbatim) which debian can't enforce, and thus
> > > can't distribute.
> > > > The Debian guys have very strict policies about what licenses are
> > > > compatible, and the VGA BIOS didn't fit. So there were
> questions about
> > > > splitting the BIOS out, or putting the whole thing under
> non-free, and,
> > > > well, it didn't look like any good solution could be found.
> Someone was
> > > > going to write the the BIOS authors to see about getting the
> > > license changed
> > > > as I recall.
> > > > Hopefully it'll all get worked out eventually.
> > > > I'm not one of the Debian Developers, and I'm only reciting
> > > this stuff from
> > > > memory, so if you want more info go look at the archives.
> > > > .Geoff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Drew Northup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 11:10 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: [plex86] Debian package
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We'd be happy to see a sources-only package on any distro, but:
> > > > 1) we aren't quite ready yet
> > > > 2) it MUST be a sources package--not binaries please!!!
> > > > As for the licensing issue, I believe that a sources set can be
> > > included in
> > > > your distro so long as it is just the sources (& the included
> > > VGA BIOS). So
> > > > tell them that.
> > > >
> > > > Drew Northup, N1XIM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> > > > > Of Hausheer,
> > > Geoffrey
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 11:07 AM
> > > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > > > > Subject: RE: [plex86] Debian package
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While it'd be great to have a debian package, you should look at
> > > > > the Debian
> > > > > Developer mailing list archives for the last month or so.
> > > There is a big
> > > > > question as to whether plex86 can be packaged at all
> because of the
> > > > > licensing of the VGA BIOS. Plus plex86 really isn't
> ready for binary
> > > > > packages yet, though it is getting close (that is to say
> it won't be a
> > > > > trivial package to make, and you'll need to rebuild it constantly
> > > > > to keep it
> > > > > current with CVS). Anyhow someone HAS ITP'd plex86, so you
> > > might as well
> > > > > head over to debian-devel and see what's going on.
> > > > > .Geoff
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Dale Thatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:17 AM
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: [plex86] Debian package
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone looked at building a Debian package? If not I'd be
> > > > > happy to give
> > > > > it
> > > > > a go.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Dale
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
