Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the Debian NetBSD project is using GNU usersland, which should
> include glibc, unless I'm greatly confused (which is certainly not out
> of the question). So if glibc is a problem
I don't know which libc is used by the Debian NetBSD people. But
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:03:17PM -0400, Tom Vier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:23:05AM +0200, Romain Dolbeau wrote:
> > So my idea is: why not go over to a kernel and libc that actually
> > support all of the above ? Namely, the NetBSD kernel...
> It'd be easier just to install netbsd.
It
From: Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:41:39 +0100
> Are hardware sensors accessible on (any sort of) Ultras, and if so,
> how? I tried lm-sensors on U5, B100 and V210 with no joy.
The bbc-envctrl driver supports the temperature and fan
sensors on the SunBlade1000 systems.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:23:05AM +0200, Romain Dolbeau wrote:
> So my idea is: why not go over to a kernel and libc that actually
> support all of the above ? Namely, the NetBSD kernel...
It'd be easier just to install netbsd. It doesn't have all the features of
linux, but it's not bad. It has t
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:23:05AM +0200, Romain Dolbeau wrote:
> 2) userland (mostly glibc) doesn't work on v7 hardware (all sun4 and
> sun4c arch, plus the SM100 modules on sun4m).
> So my idea is: why not go over to a kernel and libc that actually
> support all of the above ? Namely, the NetBS
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 01:50:58PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> As a side-note: does NetBSD support SMP on sun4m? This is the main issue for
> me.
Indeed it does - NetBSD 2.0 and later support SMP on pretty much all
Super/HyperSPARC CPUs. You can even mix speeds, but not CPUs with cache
with C
Eric Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The real question is whether there are any sparc v8 cpus that don't
> support umul. If there aren't, we should fix the libc6 deb and alter the
> documentation.
My understanding of the V8 spec is that all integer multiplications are
mandatory for comp
So you don't use apache, Xfree, or anything else with a similar license?
That's a rediculous argument. Did you submit any code to libc or the
linux kernel that really makes this a valid point? I can only see this
as being a problem with people that do development for such software.
Using it, has n
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:13:30 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Romain Dolbeau) wrote:
> >I have sincere doubts whether there are more than a handfull of
> > supported configurations that actually need this fix, if any at all.
>
> I don't think support for SM100 should be any concern to aynone, except
Eric Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The RT601 they're referring to is actually a Sparc v7 chip, and as such
> is not supported by Sarge in the first place.
It's also only found on the SM100 modules, which are only supported by
Sun in the 670MP and similar VME beasts, but not in any oth
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:53:14 +0200
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 July 2005 01:45, Eric Jorgensen wrote:
> > This means that an extremely small number of machines are affected.
> > Those are not particularly common boxes. It should be possible to
> > detect via /proc/cpuinfo
2005-07-27, sze keltezéssel 15.28-kor Romain Dolbeau ezt írta:
> mag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am free software fundamentalist, so using BSD licenced code is only
> > marginally acceptable for me.
>
> And some will argue that the GPL, by prohibiting some forms of use, is
> more restricti
Hi netters,
I installed a fresh debian sarge distribution (kernel 2.4.27-2-sparc64)
on my headless Ultra1, compiled a custom kernel (with the parallel port
configured), loaded the SUNBPP-module, but could not print any
character. The only action my printer (laserjet4P) does is showing an
error mes
mag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am free software fundamentalist, so using BSD licenced code is only
> marginally acceptable for me.
And some will argue that the GPL, by prohibiting some forms of use, is
more restrictive and therefore less free than the BSD. Which would turn
this discussion int
Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2005 14:18 schrieb mag:
> Also, I think this solution have greater support burden than the
> linux kernel way, where only some packages need special attention,
> one of them is the kernel which I am used to custom-build anyway.
> You would need to maintain buildd, cope with bu
"White John (RQ6) RLBUHT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem was logging out of my KDE session - no X login prompt -
> black screen. All other consoles were working and I could log in and
> 'startx' but not 'startkde'. According to processes - no X was
> working. Tried with Gnome login - same
Are hardware sensors accessible on (any sort of) Ultras, and if so,
how? I tried lm-sensors on U5, B100 and V210 with no joy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2005-07-27, sze keltezéssel 10.23-kor Romain Dolbeau ezt írta:
> So my idea is: why not go over to a kernel and libc that actually
> support all of the above ? Namely, the NetBSD kernel...
>
I am free software fundamentalist, so using BSD licenced code
is only marginally acceptable for me.
Also
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a side-note: does NetBSD support SMP on sun4m? This is the main issue
> for me.
It's supposed to, on both SuperSPARC and HyperSPARC; I haven't tried it
myself, as I don't have a SMP sun4m.
--
Romain Dolbeau
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2005 13:49 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
> Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2005 10:23 schrieb Romain Dolbeau:
> > So my idea is: why not go over to a kernel and libc that actually
> > support all of the above ? Namely, the NetBSD kernel...
> >
> > Debian already has started support for NetBS
Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2005 10:23 schrieb Romain Dolbeau:
> So my idea is: why not go over to a kernel and libc that actually
> support all of the above ? Namely, the NetBSD kernel...
>
> Debian already has started support for NetBSD on i386 and alpha ; why
> not try and add both sparc32/v7 and spar
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 02:06:46PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> Sun4m is the last supported 32-bit sparc architecture. Reportedly,
> the 2.6 kernel does not work in multi-processor mode on them, and
> dropping support of 2.4 from Etch is being discussed.
But it works well with a mono-processor s
Morning fellow sparc
users,
I have an Ultra 30
on which I have installed Debian via net install last month - no problems all
worked (except sound; parallel port but I knew of these
probs..).
In a moment of
madness I installed Solaris 10 which was fine but not a great experience -
especia
Hello all,
I know I'm going to get flamed but here I go anyway...
Right now it seems the sparc32 port is in trouble, due primarily to the
kernel having support problem. It can be summed up by :
1) The 2.4 kernel has trouble on some 4m hardware, and 2.6 is almost
non-working ;
2) userland (mostl
Blars Blarson wrote:
> In my opinion, we should drop support of all 32-bit sparc systems from
> Etch due to lack of people willing to spend the time to support them. This
> doesn't mean that we should delibaratly break things for them, but that
> the interest in continuing to support them is below
25 matches
Mail list logo
