Re: Installed: 10,000
On 21/12/15 11:57, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: We just reached the milestone of 10,000 up-to-date packages in the sparc64 archive. There are only around 1,500 to go which are needed to catch up with the releases architectures. Mazel tov! :) -- Best wishes, Bob
Re: Resurrecting Debian on SPARC
Just a note: sparc arch removal also affected some SPARC-specific packages[1] (e. g., "SILO" bootloader). According to Aurelien Jarno,[2] they should be re-uploaded to "unreleased". [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/07/msg00037.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/08/msg00018.html -- Best wishes, Bob
Re: Sparc removal
On 09/08/15 08:55, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Bob Bib (bob...@ukr.net): What do you mean by attic? (Probably a newbie question, sorry). ... That's a special directory named attic in the Debian Installer git repository, where we store old stuff, just like people do in their attics..:-) OK, thanks. So it's not to be confused with http://snapshot.debian.org/ :) -- Best wishes, Bob
Re: Sparc removal
On 08/08/15 20:01, Christian PERRIER wrote: ... I just moved silo-installer out to the attic this morning. What do you mean by attic? (Probably a newbie question, sorry). -- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55c67a17.8000...@ukr.net
(sparc[64]-specific pkgs) debian-ports: any BTS, PTS?
Following the sparc removal[1], some sparc-specific source packages (e. g., silo sparc-utils) have also been removed[2]. Obviously, they should be re-uploaded to debian-ports[3], to be built for sparc64. I wonder if the debian-ports have any package / bug tracking system, or is there any other specific solution to keep the important ports-only-architecture packages in the Debian archive. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/07/msg00023.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/07/msg00037.html [3] http://www.ports.debian.org/ -- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55c3f80b.6040...@ukr.net
Re: Sparc removal
On 28/07/15 12:11, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Bob Bib wrote: Hmm, could it affect some sparc[64]-only packages in a bad way (e. g., source package getting removed and no more available for debian-ports)? [...] E. g., silo is Architecture: sparc sparc64. Source packages which no longer build binary packages on any architecture get reported as cruft which we clean up every few days: +--- | Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:24:13 + | Ftpmaster: Ansgar Burchardt | Suite: unstable | Sources: | silo_1.4.14+git20120819-2 | Reason: [auto-cruft] obsolete source package +---[ https://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.822 ] I removed several more packages that might also be needed on sparc64 (I don't have an idea what is needed there). Check the removal log around that time. The packages still needed should probably be uploaded to the sparc64 section of the Debian ports archive. That's funny, thanks. The list looks not too big: afbinit 1.0-4.1 silo 1.4.14+git20120819-2 silo-installer 1.30 sparc-utils 1.9-4 xserver-xorg-video-sunffb 1:1.2.2-1 -- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55b81586.8030...@ukr.net
Re: life after Wheezy?
On 28/07/15 13:09, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: Thank you! I was not aware of the sparc64 port. And now I guess I've missed the point where sparc was removed from sid. Yep... http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/07/msg00023.html Is there a way of switching to sparc64 port directly from wheezy? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem so. Some more problems: 1) some useful packages had failed to compile on sparc64, but succeeded on sparc; 2) sparc[64]-only packages has been auto-removed from the Debian archive, after sparc architecture removal from sid (as there are no longer any build target left for them): https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/07/msg00026.html So it looks like we must find what's got removed, restore it from http://snapshot.debian.org/ and then re-upload that bunch to the debian-ports with help of someone... And then fix all the FTBFS bugs. http://popcon.debian.org/ shows there is one user of the sparc64 port. Is it you? Unfortunately, no. The last time I tried Debian on SPARC, it was Debian Squeeze (or Lenny?) sparc (yes, 64-bit kernel + 32-bit userland) on Sun Ultra 10. But now it's time for me to get access to that machine again ;-) -- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55b80fbf.8050...@ukr.net
Re: life after Wheezy?
On 23/07/15 11:56, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: Hi, is there a way to install something newer than Wheezy? Or install Wheezy and upgrade it to something newer? Any recommendations? Hi, probably wheezy - sid (until sparc gets removed* from Sid). After that, probably, only sid sparc64 from debian-ports. * The current situation is quite sad: http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/07/msg00012.html http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745938 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/04/msg00012.html -- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55b40cc3.4020...@ukr.net
Re: Debian/SPARC[64]
2014-01-12, Karel Gardas: Anyway, it looks like Linux is really not well supported on SPARC anymore. Where are those times when Jakub Jelinek done his first UltraLinux in 90s I would prefer to say it's _still_ not supported well; let's hope for more active development: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/arch/sparc // Really need to take the good old Ultra 10 from a closet ASAP :) Are the differences so hard? Maybe the GNU assembler already has the support for Sun syntax? Then it looks more like a GNU Binutils issue: http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/ Differences are not so big but before putting this compatibility in someone always need to ask if this is not done for completely dead horse. Looks like it's not. :-) Just wondering (haven't tested though) if the GNU assembler can readily support the Sun syntax as good as the Intel foreign one ;) --- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1421116927.791508026.aci5z...@frv40.fwdcdn.com
Re: Debian/SPARC[64]
Hello Karel and Joachim, 2014-01-09, Karel Gardas: I'm curious what's the status of Debian or general Linux on SPARC or SPARC64. I've read that Debian removed SPARC port from testing/unstable in 2014 so I'm curious if I shall deal with compatiblity issues between Solaris/Linux or not at all 2015-01-09, Joachim Breitner: I’ve CCed the right list for this, they might know more. I'm just another Debian user, but AFAIK, the sparc architecture has been removed from jessie/testing only: http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/01/msg0.html While currently it can be in a quite problematic state: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745938 sparc still remains in unstable and sparc64 is still in debian-ports, e. g.: http://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ghcsuite=unstable http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=ghcsuite=unstable (BTW, we can also ask Gentoo about the current state of its SPARC support). Karel: and assume that future GHC SPARC target is really just Solaris OS. Just for the note: sadly, it looks like they have removed UltraSPARC II, III, IV legacy CPU series support from Solaris 11 (hopefully, they'll continue to support them in Solaris 10): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%28operating_system%29#Version_history Karel: FYI: the issue is that Solaris switched to Sun's asm which does have different syntax than GNU asm. So to preserve compatibility with GNU or not to preserve that is the question. :-) Are the differences so hard? Maybe the GNU assembler already has the support for Sun syntax? Then it looks more like a GNU Binutils issue: http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/ --- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/142101.776008317.1leg0...@frv40.fwdcdn.com
Re: Debian Jessie regression under qemu-system-sparc64
2014-11-09 from Mark Cave-Ayland: Panic over. It seems that the latest build has increased the memory requirement above QEMU's 128MB built-in default. Increasing the RAM to 256MB seems to get things going again: $ ./qemu-system-sparc64 -m 256 -cdrom /home/build/src/qemu/image/sparc64/mini.iso -boot d -nographic I guess everyone has more RAM in their SPARC hardware these days? Have just played with QEMU (Debian qemu/2.1+dfsg-5+b1); the current Debian daily image (2014-00:26) begins to boot without panic starting from 144 MiB of QEMU's RAM. 2014-11-10 from Patrick Baggett: One virtue of the SPARC machines is that they have really high max RAM capacity relative to their time. I haven't owned a SPARC machine with less than 1GB. I can recommend Sun Ultra 5 Ultra 10 :) These systems can have max. 1 GiB of RAM (usually come with 128, 256 or 512 MiB, but fortunately upgradeable). BTW, 64-bit CPU with max. 440 MHz clock is great too :) --- Best wishes, Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1415672721.16414299.udugy...@frv40.fwdcdn.com
