On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:58:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Gunnar,
>
> I quite agree with Anthony that if we have to emulate the machine, there's
> not much sense in supporting it.
I disagree: porters should be free to use whatever tools they want to
do the job. What is important is whe
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> safe - Yes, I know we cannot run Debian on a regular UAE because of
> the lack of a MMU in the official package, but we _can_ run it inside
> Basilisk2.
I was wondering how you are supposed to run Debian inside official
BasiliskII
Steve Langasek wrote:
>Hi Gunnar,
>
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
>>And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really
>>checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as
>>Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although p
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:58:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Now, if we face dropping one or more of our architectures (i.e. m68k)
> > because new hardware can not be found anymore (the Vancouver proposal
> > mentions that "the release architecture must be publicly available to
> > buy new"
Hi Gunnar,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really
> checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as
> Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although probably not
> currently as
* Riku Voipio
| Incidentally the first problem should be solvable with the multiarch
| proposal, and the toolchains need to be polished anyway.
The multiarch proposals out there deal with how to run binaries for
multiple architectures, not how to cross-build. That's one of the
roads which would
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:47:41AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> > >Apparently the feeling wrt distcc is somewhat different and is likely to
> > >be a more generally accepted solution to the slow-at-compiling issue.
> >
> > I like distcc -- heck I
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >Apparently the feeling wrt distcc is somewhat different and is likely to
> >be a more generally accepted solution to the slow-at-compiling issue.
>
> I like distcc -- heck I went to high school with the author -- and I
> think it's cool. I don't
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal [1]. Now, I
understand that up to now we
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
> are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
> speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal [1]. Now, I
> understand that up to now we have had the
> > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > crosscompiling.
> Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
> because they very frequently need to execute the compiled binaries as
> well as just compile them.
Umm, that is the _exactly_ the problem scr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hampson) writes:
> That'll work. _All_ distcc sends to the crosscompiler is preprocessed c
> code to be compiled into object code. So the source-code building widget
> is compiled remotely, run locally, and the results are sent to compile
> remotely.
Oh, I see now. I was
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 08:21:18PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > A much faster solution would be to use dis
Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > > crosscompiling.
> >
> > Debian packages cannot
> Yes, but the argument against cross-compiling has always been stronger
> - If you are compiling under an emulator, you can at least test the
> produced binaries under that same emulator, and you have a high degree
> of confidence that they work reliably (this is, if an emulator bug
> leads to gcc
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > crosscompiling.
>
> Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
> because they v
On 18 Mar 2005 18:58:50 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > crosscompiling.
>
> Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
> because they very frequently need to execute the compiled bin
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> crosscompiling.
Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
because they very frequently need to execute the compiled binaries as
well as just compile them.
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver dijo [Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:41:46AM +0100]:
> > Nowadays, an i386 system emulating a m68k (using either UAE or
> > Basilisk2) is at least comparable to the fastest m68k system ever
> > produced. I have worked with both emulators, and both seem completely
> > safe - Yes, I
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't followed as thoroughly as I would have liked the recent
> verborrhea in the list regarding the Vancouver proposal. Anyway, I'd
> like to raise a point that I brought up during Debconf3, in the light
> of the changes t
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Nowadays, an i386 system emulating a m68k (using either UAE or
Basilisk2) is at least comparable to the fastest m68k system ever
produced. I have worked with both emulators, and both seem completely
safe - Yes, I know we cannot run Debian on a regular UAE because of
the lack of
Hi,
I haven't followed as thoroughly as I would have liked the recent
verborrhea in the list regarding the Vancouver proposal. Anyway, I'd
like to raise a point that I brought up during Debconf3, in the light
of the changes that we are now facing.
Most (although not all) of the architectures faci
22 matches
Mail list logo
