On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:03:35AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> The current way does not work. See all the bug reports about
> uninstallable packages and what not with dkms.
>
> To build modules against version x, you'll need to install version x of
> the headers, not x-1 or x+1. This currently
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:29:48PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Are you sure you're not interchanging A8 and A9, cfr. Linux kernel commit
> e388b80288aade31 ("ARM: spectre-v2: add Cortex A8 and A15 validation of the
> IBE bit")?
Yes. That is the main reason the A9 is faster than the A8 at t
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> in addition, arm64 is usually speculative OoO (Cavium ThunderX V1
> being a notable exception) which means it's vulnerable to spectre and
> meltdown attacks, whereas 32-bit ARM is exclusively in-order. if you
> want t
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 09:01:26PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Are they developing new powerpc products?
AMCC? I have no idea. Maybe not. Freescale certainly seems to be.
> Their latest products are also pretty ARM.
That they are.
> Are you talking about new e6500 SoCs, or are you only talki
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:18:39PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Freescala/NXP is not even on the OpenPOWER member list - this is not the
> old power.org
Neither is AMCC as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean they aren't still
doing powerpc.
> For their network processors Freescala/NXP is moving away
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:54:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I think Freescala/NXP might disagree. Not sure if the e6500 core could
> ruin ppc64el or not, but they certainly make a lot of powerpc chips.
That should have said 'run' not 'ruin'. That would ha
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:22:14PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeeGo#Companies_supporting_the_project
>
> That's also an impressive list of companies, isn't it?
> When the one company that mattered switched to a different platform,
> the whole platform collapsed immed
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to
> support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we?
Well it is getting there.
--
Len Sorensen
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 08:35:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port?
Yes.
The only ones that don't are the Freescale 85xx and P10[12]x chips,
which are powerpcspe due to using the e500 core.
All the 83xx and 82xx chips which are still
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:04:12AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> The debian-powerpc@l.d.o mailing list is active so I would say it
> still has some users. I have been using partch.d.o for doing some work
> on PowerPC. I posted a summary of work people have been doing on this
> port lately:
>
>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There's a few projects that have abandoned claiming to support
> anything below ARMv7. The one that comes to mind most readily is
> libv8, but there have been others.
I don't see libv8 on powerpc either. Don't think it has ever bee
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:05:17PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Martin Pitt (2015-04-16):
> > Hello Cyril,
> >
> > Cyril Brulebois [2015-04-16 19:40 +0200]:
> > > Anyway, asking for home encryption indeed leads to swap encryption,
> > > through a ecryptfs-setup-swap call, which in turn trigger
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:29:19PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I'm not sure what your point is.
>
> Maybe “crazy how ppc64 people got interested in getting their packages
> built as opposed to getting debian.org ports page updated”? Anyway, if
> you want to know about the port, see the wiki[1]
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 06:48:13PM +0100, peter green wrote:
> Not in debian proper but it is on debian-ports.org and it appears to
> be pretty healthy.
Hmm, not listed under the official nor unofficial debian ports, while
ppc64el is.
https://www.debian.org/ports/
ppc64el listed, ppc64 is not.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:14:08AM +0100, peter green wrote:
> Another question the ftpmasters will likely have is what is the
> relationship between ppc64 and ppc64el. Is there hardware that will
> run ppc64 but not ppc64el? is there hardware that will run ppc64el
> but not ppc64? is there hardwar
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:19:24AM -0400, Federico Sologuren wrote:
> i have a HP Visualize B2000 that i managed to install last night from iso
> distribution that i found after a lot of looking. at this point only
> terminal is working. will keep reading to get debian up and running.
>
> i would
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 05:03:32PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer. AFAICT the particular mail was not sent to
> debian-release@lists.d.o, which is why I missed it. Anyhow, I will be
> sure to include you in the final tally.
I sent it to the 4 architectures I was interested
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:38:29AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Here is a little status update on the mails we have received so far.
> First off, thanks to all the porters who have already replied!
>
> So far, the *no one* has stepped up to back the following architectures:
>
>hurd-i386
>
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 07:34:59AM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> Magic? ;-) Something in the packaging of binfmt-support and/or
> qemu-user-static?
>
> I was just following instructions I picked up on the web. I can assure
> you the work because I had a disk crash a while back and did a system
> re-install
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 07:12:25PM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 12:22 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > How are you doing the build using qemu's cpu emulator? I remember last
> > I played with it I had issues with shared libraries where the command
> >
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:06:30AM -0400, wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 08:59:57AM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> > Not that horrible. I just did a kernel build on my laptop in an ARM
> > chroot and it took 19m43s, doing it as a cross-build took 1m14s. I
> > haven't got my Pandaboard setup to do a compar
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 08:59:57AM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> Not that horrible. I just did a kernel build on my laptop in an ARM
> chroot and it took 19m43s, doing it as a cross-build took 1m14s. I
> haven't got my Pandaboard setup to do a comparison, but I
> suspect it wouldn't be much faster than my e
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:02:33PM +0100, Tixy wrote:
> I may be being naive, but could an X86 PC be used with an ARM chroot and
> qemu-arm-static to emulate ARM instructions? Or is qemu not stable
> enough, or the emulated environment different enough that package
> building would fail (e.g. throu
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 07:42:32PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I am still a regular powerpc user, and I should have sufficient time to
> assist with porting issues for the foreseeable future, which I haven't
> done for the last couple of releases but will now be able to. So feel
> free to put me d
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:31:06PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> I reuploaded w/o that patch - that fix was POWER7 specific, and it
> looks like POWER7 support wasn't supported in the lenny timeframe
> anyway.
POWER7 only really got added to the installer in 6.0.4 (not even 6.0)
so, seems perfectly
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:33:44PM -0500, Milan Kupcevic wrote:
> Well, the whole situation you are describing actually motivated me to do
> something about it. And I did what was possible to do in short period of
> time.
>
> >
> >> Any bugreport I could read?
> >
> > Well given I don't even kno
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:42:49PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Well, Gaudenz and Milan worked on fixing the reported RC bugs against
> yaboot. And, I'd rather thank them for that. sid's version doesn't look
> like fixing the critical problems experienced by our users. Besides, I
> don't see any bu
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:52:34PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 10:27 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> >
> > I sponsored an uploaded of yaboot to testing-proposed-updates with the
> > following changes to fix RC bugs:
> >
> > yaboot (1.3.13a-1squeeze1) testing-proposed-updates; urgenc
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
> > Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
> >include files in the multiarch locations.
> > Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:10:42PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> The latest shadow upload fixes a RC bug (#394182) but, for some
> strange (at least to me and Nicolas Fran?ois, the package
> co-maintainer) reason, failed to build on arm.
>
> Is it possible for an arm porter to try to bring som
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 08:13:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> we (the release team) noticed that arm has had some autobuilding and porting
> problems in the past few weeks. According to the most recent britney runs,
> the current numbers of uncompiled binaries are these:
> 110 mips
> 116
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> It is an AmigaOS binary, built from free source with free compilers. So we
> just have to
> include all the free AmigaOS software to be able to ship a precompiled
> amiboot? As I said,
> no problem with me, maybe we include
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:02:58PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Due to the way how buildd works, it sometimes happens that packages slip
> through the cracks and get lost. If that happens, usually all you need
> to do is contact the buildd admin. Have you tried that? (i.e.,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:00:16AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> That's odd, my mirror has the latest arm binary .debs for mpich and lam,
> and they appear to have been there for quite a while...
Maybe I have to check my sources.list then. That seems weird.
I will try redoing my /etc/apt dire
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> You can browse the build logs on buildd.debian.org.
I did. It says mpich was build (probably succesful) 2 months ago. It
does not tell me why it still hasn't entered unstable 2 months later.
That is what I was wondering about.
Is
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 11:37:17PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Can someone please build scalapack for arm? I tried (took about 20
> hours on my netwinder), but am still bitten by bug 222536 -- which is
> not reproducible, except on my box where it always happens. :-(
>
> Since I just built o
36 matches
Mail list logo
