Re: [UWAGA SPAM] Re: Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Dnia 2007-07-27, o godz. 16:34:47 Chris Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a): Maybe it's time to somehow re-spawn Debian GNU/kNetBSD since NetBSD is apparently paying more attention to avoiding regressions than Linux (that's a euphemism---but I don't want this to sound too harsh, though, being myself a humble luser). Hi I have a few sparc32 machines and I can give access to them to any developer needing it. I think Debian/[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a very good idea, but it depends on how many people would like to contribute. Best regards, mjb -- [ --- Maciej Jan Broniarz || [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] | Siamo qui \ sotto la stessa luce \ sotto la sua croce \ | | cantando ad una voce \ E l'Emmanuel Emmanuel, Emmanuel, | [ --- E l'Emmanuel, Emmanuel -- ]
Re: Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Hi, I have a few sparc32 machines and I can give access to them to any developer needing it. I don't think that it's the lack of hardware which has lead us to the current situation. There's plenty out there, though not blindingly fast. I think Debian/[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a very good idea, but it depends on how many people would like to contribute. I tend to differ. It will be easier to fix the Linux kernel, find a maintainer for it and then get it into Debian again. We would leveraging the existing work better that way. Just my 2 cents, Uli -- Dipl. Inf. Ulrich Teichert|e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stormweg 24 |listening to: Channel 13 Is Haunted (Hex Dispensers) 24539 Neumuenster, Germany|Adrenalin (Supabond), Ne Me Touch Pas (Opération S) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[UWAGA SPAM] Re: [UWAGA SPAM] Re: Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Dnia 2007-07-29, o godz. 15:11:55 Ulrich Teichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a): I tend to differ. It will be easier to fix the Linux kernel, find a maintainer for it and then get it into Debian again. We would leveraging the existing work better that way. We will agree on one issue. The main problem is the lack of people working on that port. No matter is it NetBSD or Linux. Maybe the common effort would be a best solution. mjb -- [ --- Maciej Jan Broniarz || [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] | Siamo qui \ sotto la stessa luce \ sotto la sua croce \ | | cantando ad una voce \ E l'Emmanuel Emmanuel, Emmanuel, | [ --- E l'Emmanuel, Emmanuel -- ]
Re: [UWAGA SPAM] Re: Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Is there still kernel support for the AMD K6? On 29/07/07, Ludovic Courtès [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Maciej Jan Broniarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a few sparc32 machines and I can give access to them to any developer needing it. I think Debian/[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a very good idea, but it depends on how many people would like to contribute. Just to clarify: as with Debian GNU/Linux on SPARC, the main issue is getting contributors to actually work on it. FWIW, I'm neither a Debian Developer, nor a Linux or NetBSD hacker, and I may not become one overnight... Thanks, Ludovic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD and sparc32 hardware?
[CC to debian-bsd as it's relevant there, too] On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:13:03PM +0200, Maciej Jan Broniarz wrote: Dnia 2007-07-29, o godz. 15:11:55 Ulrich Teichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a): I tend to differ. It will be easier to fix the Linux kernel, find a maintainer for it and then get it into Debian again. We would leveraging the existing work better that way. We will agree on one issue. The main problem is the lack of people working on that port. No matter is it NetBSD or Linux. The Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD port may have a lack of people and support at the moment (I don't know the current status, though). However, it seems that the upstream development of the sparc32 code in the NetBSD kernel is _not_ halted (unlike the upstream Linux support). Can somebody confirm that? Maybe I'll just ask on the resp. NetBSD list.. In that case, a good long-term solution (IMO) would be to bring the Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD (sparc32) port up to speed (or rather: start it, I don't think it exists yet, there was only work for i386 and alpha, IIRC). That may sound like a lot of work (and it probably is), but I think it's mostly Debian-related work, and not kernel maintainence work (as that is done by upstream), so it may be a good option to keep Debian alive on sparc32 hardware. Comments? Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD and sparc32 hardware?
Uwe Hermann wrote: [CC to debian-bsd as it's relevant there, too] On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:13:03PM +0200, Maciej Jan Broniarz wrote: Dnia 2007-07-29, o godz. 15:11:55 Ulrich Teichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a): I tend to differ. It will be easier to fix the Linux kernel, find a maintainer for it and then get it into Debian again. We would leveraging the existing work better that way. We will agree on one issue. The main problem is the lack of people working on that port. No matter is it NetBSD or Linux. The Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD port may have a lack of people and support at the moment (I don't know the current status, though). However, it seems that the upstream development of the sparc32 code in the NetBSD kernel is _not_ halted (unlike the upstream Linux support). Maybe, but NetBSD kernel does not correctly work on sun4m/SMP, like Linux. Today, no one OS can be used on sun4m/SMP workstations, and I think that it will be easier to fix linux 2.6 sparc32 kernel than work on debian/xBSD sparc32 port. Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD and sparc32 hardware?
Hi, On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:13:03PM +0200, Maciej Jan Broniarz wrote: Dnia 2007-07-29, o godz. 15:11:55 Ulrich Teichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa=C5=82(a): I tend to differ. It will be easier to fix the Linux kernel, find a maintainer for it and then get it into Debian again. We would leveraging the existing work better that way. We will agree on one issue. The main problem is the lack of people working on that port. No matter is it NetBSD or Linux. Right. The Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD port may have a lack of people and support at the moment (I don't know the current status, though). However, it seems that the upstream development of the sparc32 code in the NetBSD kernel is _not_ halted (unlike the upstream Linux support). That's not quite true. Dave Miller is still collecting patches, Mark Fortescue, Krzysztof Helt and others are producing them. See the respective posts on [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just that there is no real maintainer for the port. Can somebody confirm that? Maybe I'll just ask on the resp. NetBSD list.. A quick look at the mailinglist archive at http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/port-sparc/2007/07/ suggests that there is activity as well. I don't know the maintainer state of NetBSD-sparc, though. In that case, a good long-term solution (IMO) would be to bring the Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD (sparc32) port up to speed (or rather: start it, I don't think it exists yet, there was only work for i386 and alpha, IIRC). That may sound like a lot of work (and it probably is), but I think it's mostly Debian-related work, and not kernel maintainence work (as that is done by upstream), so it may be a good option to keep Debian alive on sparc32 hardware. Call me a chicken, but I still think it will be less work to just fix the issues in the kernel and use the existing stuff instead. I agree that a new debian architecture would be more fun, but splitting up the remaining debian sparc32 developers between NetBSD and Linux does not sound too healthy for me. CU, Uli -- Dipl. Inf. Ulrich Teichert|e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stormweg 24 |listening to: Channel 13 Is Haunted (Hex Dispensers) 24539 Neumuenster, Germany|Is It Good Or Is It Bad? (Opération S) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD and sparc32 hardware?
Hi, BERTRAND Joël [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe, but NetBSD kernel does not correctly work on sun4m/SMP, like Linux. Today, no one OS can be used on sun4m/SMP workstations, and I think that it will be easier to fix linux 2.6 sparc32 kernel than work on debian/xBSD sparc32 port. I had reports stating the contrary, as far as HyperSPARC SMP is concerned (which seems like the less-likely-to-work configuration): http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.ports.sparc/6945 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.ports.sparc/6943 OTOH, there were mixed reports related to SMP with other processors: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.ports.sparc/6931 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.ports.sparc/6914 Thanks, Ludovic.
Re: Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD and sparc32 hardware?
Hi, Ulrich Teichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not quite true. Dave Miller is still collecting patches, Mark Fortescue, Krzysztof Helt and others are producing them. See the respective posts on [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just that there is no real maintainer for the port. [...] Call me a chicken, but I still think it will be less work to just fix the issues in the kernel and use the existing stuff instead. That's the whole issue. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongfully) that Linux development is moving at a high pace, not considering support of legacy hardware as a high priority. For instance, the first 2.6 releases introduced significant regressions wrt. SPARC32 support compared to 2.4. Only now is 2.6 starting to catch up with 2.4, thanks to the work of a few people. Conversely, it seems that NetBSD values continued support more, judging from the mailing list archives of various ports (including, e.g., the still active VAX port!). It's probably following a much more conservative development approach, less biased towards newer hardware. I agree that a new debian architecture would be more fun, but splitting up the remaining debian sparc32 developers between NetBSD and Linux does not sound too healthy for me. Agreed. In the short term, it does seem easier to try and fix Linux' SPARC32 support. However, I'm wondering whether that would be a good long-term investment. Now, similar issues may also arise with other architectures, too. Thanks, Ludovic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU/(k)NetBSD and sparc32 hardware?
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:22:04AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Call me a chicken, but I still think it will be less work to just fix the issues in the kernel and use the existing stuff instead. That's the whole issue. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongfully) that Linux development is moving at a high pace, not considering support of legacy hardware as a high priority. For instance, the first 2.6 releases introduced significant regressions wrt. SPARC32 support compared to 2.4. Only now is 2.6 starting to catch up with 2.4, thanks to the work of a few people. That's wrong. The Linux kernel development works the same way as Debian. If some persons are working on a port, it is supported. If not it is not supported. It does not depend on the fact the hardware is old or not. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
