On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sébastien Bernard wrote:
>> >>I have no clue why is it marked oldkernel something related to the buildd ?
>> >>
>> >The debian.org sparc machines do not work reliably with recent kernels.
>> >That is not sustainable.
>
> Not only them.
Hi,
Sébastien Bernard wrote:
> >>I have no clue why is it marked oldkernel something related to the buildd ?
> >>
> >The debian.org sparc machines do not work reliably with recent kernels.
> >That is not sustainable.
Not only them. All my Sparcs run Squeeze kernels, too, because neither
Wheezy (3
Le 28/04/2014 16:12, Patrick Baggett a écrit :
The main problem is that the 2 new buildd are Niagara machines
which are not really stable. It left only 2 buildd which seems to
be quit old and slow.
On my V240, the 3.13 kernel seems to be rock solid (I've been
rebuilding the
>
>
> No, that is not accurate. The main reason is that there are a number of
> issues with the sparc port currently that are not being addressed
> because apparently nobody is interested enough in the sparc port to fix
> the issues.
>
>
OK, what are the major issues and the bug # assigned to them
>
>
>> The main problem is that the 2 new buildd are Niagara machines which are
> not really stable. It left only 2 buildd which seems to be quit old and
> slow.
>
> On my V240, the 3.13 kernel seems to be rock solid (I've been rebuilding
> the gcc package 3 times - 8hours build - without any issu
Le 26/04/2014 22:59, Julien Cristau a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:44:16 +0200, Sébastien Bernard wrote:
No, that is not accurate. The main reason is that there are a number
of issues with the sparc port currently that are not being addressed
because apparently nobody is interested enoug
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:44:16 +0200, Sébastien Bernard wrote:
> Le 18/04/2014 06:56, Joost van Baal-Ilić a écrit :
> >I'd guess skilled hacker time is more needed than hardware. Reading
> >https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_qualify.html , it seems major
> >blocking issues are: "Using gcc-4.
Le 20/04/2014 18:26, Patrick Baggett a écrit :
Also, a lot of the messages about "removing v8 support" or "upstream
dropping sparc32" is confusing. SPARCv8, sometimes called "sparc32"
(more specifically, 32-bit SPARCv8 ISA that predates the 64-bit ISA,
SPARCv9) is used by just /one/ CPU that
>
>
> Because GCC maintainers have been saying for years, that they are
> unwilling to support the weird use case of Debian sparc port, which has
> 64-bit kernel but 32-bit userspace. I can find discussions about it going
> back as far as 2009:
>
>
Also, a lot of the messages about "removing v8 sup
>
>
> Because GCC maintainers have been saying for years, that they are
> unwilling to support the weird use case of Debian sparc port, which has
> 64-bit kernel but 32-bit userspace. I can find discussions about it going
> back as far as 2009:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2009/08/msg0
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Sébastien Bernard wrote:
>
> Doh, beat me to it by a minute. Yeah, you see what I mean. :)
>>
>> It would be platform suicide to drop 32-bit code generation. Like many
>> RISC architectures, switching to 64-bit is only done for apps that need it,
>> because it is
Doh, beat me to it by a minute. Yeah, you see what I mean. :)
It would be platform suicide to drop 32-bit code generation. Like many
RISC architectures, switching to 64-bit is only done for apps that
need it, because it is not free and will not, in general, make apps
faster. Anyone who has w
Le 18/04/2014 18:35, Sébastien Bernard a écrit :
> sparc
> Upstream Support
> According to the gcc maintainer 32bit code generation as we use it
is no longer supported upstream and we should aim for > a switch to
64bit userland anytime soon.
This is quite clear, and maybe p
Le 18/04/2014 14:16, Patrick Baggett a écrit :
I really don't understand why this "32-bit gone" myth is happening. It
was poor wording at least. Debian doesn't even support the ancient
32-bit sparc CPUs. Modern SPARC ABIs (post 1997) require 64-bit CPUs
even when running in 32-bit code, it's li
>
>
> I don't understand, there is no warning of abi or architecture deprecation
> in the release notes of gcc, neither 4.7 nor 4.8.
> Maybe they have information I don't, but I doubt it. I'll dig in the gcc
> mailing list to see if I can find something related.
>
> Sébastien
>
Doh, beat me to it
Yeah, I understand why you would believe that. I'm not blaming you, I just
want to let everyone know the sentence "32-bit code generation as we use it
is no longer supported upstream" is incorrect. You can see on the GCC 4.7
[1] and 4.8 [2] changes list that removing any SPARC code generation
featu
Le 18/04/2014 14:16, Patrick Baggett a écrit :
I really don't understand why this "32-bit gone" myth is happening. It
was poor wording at least. Debian doesn't even support the ancient
32-bit sparc CPUs. Modern SPARC ABIs (post 1997) require 64-bit CPUs
even when running in 32-bit code, it's like
I really don't understand why this "32-bit gone" myth is happening. It was
poor wording at least. Debian doesn't even support the ancient 32-bit sparc
CPUs. Modern SPARC ABIs (post 1997) require 64-bit CPUs even when running
in 32-bit code, it's like x32 ABI in x86 land.
SPARCv7, SPARCv8 = old 32-
Le 18/04/2014 06:56, Joost van Baal-Ilić a écrit :
I'd guess skilled hacker time is more needed than hardware. Reading
https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_qualify.html , it seems major
blocking issues are: "Using gcc-4.6 as default compiler" and "Have to
run oldstable kernels". Related to th
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:02:31AM +0200, Sébastien Bernard wrote:
> Reading the 2 or 3 warning from from debian-devel-announce,
> I'm afraid that the sparc architecture is going legacy the same way
> that it did for the hppa.
> What could it be done to keep this architecture as a first class citiz
Reading the 2 or 3 warning from from debian-devel-announce,
I'm afraid that the sparc architecture is going legacy the same way that
it did for the hppa.
What could it be done to keep this architecture as a first class citizen ?
If I understood correctly, the debian port of debian is on watch a
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Christian Meder wrote:
>sorry for my absence during the past week. My girlfriend and I got a
>small baby boy on Wednesday which mixed up my timetable. I guess
>that's a usual feature of children that they mix up your life ;-)
:-) Congratulations on becoming a dad.
--
Steve M
Hi,
sorry for my absence during the past week. My girlfriend and I got a
small baby boy on Wednesday which mixed up my timetable. I guess
that's a usual feature of children that they mix up your life ;-)
First of all a big thankyou to Steve Dunham and Eric Delaunay for
making the Sparc release h
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just have to say I am extremely impressed at the speed that Chris is
> pumping out the sparc binary packages.
> Question, if the sparc release is now aiming at making slink shouldn't
> there be a split for slink/potato? This might avoid any confusion on
I just have to say I am extremely impressed at the speed that Chris is
pumping out the sparc binary packages.
Question, if the sparc release is now aiming at making slink shouldn't
there be a split for slink/potato? This might avoid any confusion on what
distribution the binaries are based on.
--
Derrick J Brashear writes:
> > I've been meaning to have a look at it, I just haven't had the time yet.
> > The repeat delay does seem rather short (I counted about 0.2 s), and
> > as far as I can tell it's kernel related (though, as I said, I haven't
> > really had the time to look at it y
Hello,
I have just got a working sparclinux installed on an old sun4c
SS2, and I had many of your problems. Generally speaking, I've found
that people with sun4m machines are in better shape. It seems that
not everything gets tested on a sun4c, probably because developers don't
have acce
> One question presetns itself. Versions. Do we add a non-maintainer
> version bump? What about if absolutely no change was made? (libungif, for
> example, I recompiled as a no-brainer).
As I have understood it, when doing a "no-brainer", thus making a
package that didn't needed any editing fro
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 02:26 -0700 1998-07-22, Jonas Oberg wrote:
> >I am a debian developer. It's just that I'm not sure what to do about
> >these sparc packages, I mean, nothing is changed from the maintaners
> >package so it's an NMU, whilst at the same time it itsn't :-)
At 02:26 -0700 1998-07-22, Jonas Oberg wrote:
>I am a debian developer. It's just that I'm not sure what to do about
>these sparc packages, I mean, nothing is changed from the maintaners
>package so it's an NMU, whilst at the same time it itsn't :-)
>
>When I compiled the package for sparc, I got t
At 02:16 -0700 1998-07-22, Jules Bean wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Joel Klecker wrote:
>> sparc has libc5, glibc ldd can't deal with libc5 binaries, ldso ldd handles
>> libc5 and libc6 binaries, which is why it is used. This is also true of
>> every other Debian port that has libc5.
>
>Now I'm conf
> "Stephen" == Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Actually, my Sparc5/85 (non-Turbo) also had this problem.
Stephen> I'm going to try loading the math-emu module I built as
Stephen> part of the .35 kernel and see if it's fixed.
Following up on myself: loading math-
> "Derrick" == Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Derrick> Yes, but presumably this is your TurboSparc, and you're
Derrick> using the pathetic attempt at TurboSparc support I
Derrick> did. The FPE problem is a) only interesting if people
Derrick> (including you) with
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Anders Hammarquist wrote:
> That's an error I've seen more places. Try linking with g++ instead of
> gcc and see if the errors go away. There are all sorts of tidbits that
Thanks, that did it. I'll put the menu_1.5-12_sparc.deb file on
ftp://home.broudy.net/pub/debian for now
>The String problems can be fixed relatively easily by casting char*'s to
>class Stings's. I got to problems at link time dealing with the STL vector
>template. Actually, I get the same problems on my hamm x86 system, so I'm
>not sure how that binary got compiled either. The errors that I get are
>
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> I tried to compile menu the other day, and it hit a lot of problems which
> I tentatively diagnosed as being incompatibilities between the 'String.h'
> provided by libstdc++2.8-dev and libg++272-dev. Maybe you'd have a quick
> look and see if I'm right.
T
> I've been meaning to have a look at it, I just haven't had the time yet.
> The repeat delay does seem rather short (I counted about 0.2 s), and
> as far as I can tell it's kernel related (though, as I said, I haven't
> really had the time to look at it yet).
I don't have any problem with any
> Wow, just found it in my mirror - guess I should look there more often.
> The FPE problem still exists though
Yes, but presumably this is your TurboSparc, and you're using the pathetic
attempt at TurboSparc support I did. The FPE problem is a) only interesting if
people (including you) wit
>I would like to add the problem of keyboard repeat. No one seems to
>care but it is very important to me. I have to enter my password many
>times just to login because I can't make my keyborad not repeating my
>password. May be I have a special type of typing with my finger
>staying on the key lon
> If you're not a developer, you can't.
I am a debian developer. It's just that I'm not sure what to do about
these sparc packages, I mean, nothing is changed from the maintaners
package so it's an NMU, whilst at the same time it itsn't :-)
When I compiled the package for sparc, I got these files
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Shuey writes:
> > I've been reading this list for a while now, so maybe I can answer a few
> > questions about Debian/sparc's status. I may be wrong about the status of
> > a few things, but if I am the main developers will probably hurry
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Jonas Oberg wrote:
> > latest version. In particular, someone should look into rebuilding mount.
> > That would fix several dependency problems.
>
> Actually, I did this just a few hours ago :-) I've got a mount-2.7l,
> debian revision 5 working just fine here. If someone c
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 17:06 -0700 1998-07-21, Jules Bean wrote:
> >To follow up my own message, it seems that we aren't using the glibc
> >version of ldd. I don't know why.
>
> sparc has libc5, glibc ldd can't deal with libc5 binaries, ldso ldd handles
> libc5 and libc6 b
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 15:25 -0700 1998-07-21, Jules Bean wrote:
> >Well, not *all* that much. See my original message. Things that spring
> >to mind are - menu, lots of the graphics stuff (we have GIMP though,
> >yay!), libg++272 (not valuable in itself, but key to compil
Michael Shuey writes:
> I've been reading this list for a while now, so maybe I can answer a few
> questions about Debian/sparc's status. I may be wrong about the status of
> a few things, but if I am the main developers will probably hurry to correct
> me, so here goes.
I would like to add t
> latest version. In particular, someone should look into rebuilding mount.
> That would fix several dependency problems.
Actually, I did this just a few hours ago :-) I've got a mount-2.7l,
debian revision 5 working just fine here. If someone could tell me how
I should get it up on the ftp, I'd
At 17:06 -0700 1998-07-21, Jules Bean wrote:
>To follow up my own message, it seems that we aren't using the glibc
>version of ldd. I don't know why.
sparc has libc5, glibc ldd can't deal with libc5 binaries, ldso ldd handles
libc5 and libc6 binaries, which is why it is used. This is also true of
At 15:25 -0700 1998-07-21, Jules Bean wrote:
>Well, not *all* that much. See my original message. Things that spring
>to mind are - menu, lots of the graphics stuff (we have GIMP though,
>yay!), libg++272 (not valuable in itself, but key to compiling some other
>things)
I'm pretty sure every lib
I've been reading this list for a while now, so maybe I can answer a few
questions about Debian/sparc's status. I may be wrong about the status of
a few things, but if I am the main developers will probably hurry to correct
me, so here goes.
Debian sparc has some degree of problems with the k
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> Well, actually, the intel versions of libc6 is 2.0.7pre.
Jules> (while we're on a pre of 2.1) But anyway, it does rather
Jules> sound like my problems are specific to my machine (which I
Jules> doubt) or to the SS2 or 4c
On 21 Jul 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Jules> To satisfy my curiousity, would you execute the following
> Jules> on your machine:
>
> Jules> md5sum /usr/bin/ldd /lib/libc-2.0.93.so
>
> 3519891fb43b6a1d5ff81c9e69034359 /usr/bin/ldd
> 547e0385a5a3b8c604aa9a3b6d17323e /lib/libc-2.0.93
On 21 Jul 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jules> Does 'ldd /usr/lib/libm.so' (to pick one example) work for
> Jules> you? It doesn't for me...
>
> Yep, sure does.
>
> libc6: 2.0.93-980414-1
> ldso: 1.9.9-1
>
> which ar
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> Does 'ldd /usr/lib/libm.so' (to pick one example) work for
Jules> you? It doesn't for me...
Yep, sure does.
libc6: 2.0.93-980414-1
ldso: 1.9.9-1
which are the latest that I'm aware of.
Jules> I suspect t
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> On 21 Jul 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> > > "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [snip]
> > Jules> in itself, but key to compiling some other things) and this
> > Jules> ldd bug seems annoying, possibly serious.
> >
> > I sa
On 21 Jul 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip]
> Jules> in itself, but key to compiling some other things) and this
> Jules> ldd bug seems annoying, possibly serious.
>
> I saw your post about ldd but have never seen it mis-behave
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
Jules> in itself, but key to compiling some other things) and this
Jules> ldd bug seems annoying, possibly serious.
I saw your post about ldd but have never seen it mis-behave so I
didn't comment.
BTW, I've also never had any
On 21 Jul 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jules> Huh?
>
> Jules> Perl works!
>
> Wow, just found it in my mirror - guess I should look there more often.
> The FPE problem still exists though
I guess my SS2 has an FPU, so I have
Everything is working mostly OK for me. I only have a few SunIPC's to play
with, and am waiting on a couple of large SCSI Hdd's for them before I can
go too mad.
The boot disks work fine on my IPC's too by the way.
Richard Parkinson Ph 64 7 8399090
Sys
> Thank god...
> This list has been dead for a while. With the way the redhat sparc 5.0
> release went i was afraid debian-sparc was going to go the way of the
> dodo.
> Let's get going...
I hereby declare that I shall do all that is in my power to further
Debian-sparc.
Of course, since I'm stuc
Thank god...
This list has been dead for a while. With the way the redhat sparc 5.0
release went i was afraid debian-sparc was going to go the way of the
dodo.
Let's get going...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> Huh?
Jules> Perl works!
Wow, just found it in my mirror - guess I should look there more often.
The FPE problem still exists though
Jules> I have 201 packages on my debian-sparc machine... including
Jules> perl, X
On 21 Jul 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jules> I'm glad I have a second. I now would like some response
> Jules> from the people who got the port as far as it is, so I know
> Jules> the current status of things...
>
> Before y
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> I'm glad I have a second. I now would like some response
Jules> from the people who got the port as far as it is, so I know
Jules> the current status of things...
Before you can get terribly far at all, you need a perl pac
OK, I found where to get the Xserver. I figured i'd just repost it here
again. ;)
ftp.netg.se:/pub/Linux/sparc/X
Has the deb packages for XSUN (CG3/6,etc) XSUN24 (zx, other 24bpp cards)
and Mono.
--Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Chris Trainor wrote:
> I've had no problems with the boot disks on a Sparc 5. Just figured i'd
> let everyone know. ;)
>
> What I would like, and can't find, is a graphical Xclient. I tried just
> tossing in Redhats CG6 client, but it didn't seem to work too well, and I
>
You didn't Cc: your reply back to the list. In general, you should, since
my answers will be valuable to others. I am taking the liberty of Cc:ing
this all back to the list now.
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Michael Mattice wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
> > I see the following problems with my SS2:
> >
I've had no problems with the boot disks on a Sparc 5. Just figured i'd
let everyone know. ;)
What I would like, and can't find, is a graphical Xclient. I tried just
tossing in Redhats CG6 client, but it didn't seem to work too well, and I
don't have the time right now to play with it. Any id
Hi all.
There seem to be quite a few problems with the sparc port, and I'm more
than happy to help - but this list seems to be almost dead. No one with
an 'air of authority' is around here...
I see the following problems with my SS2:
1) The boot disks don't work. Not an issue for me, but impor
68 matches
Mail list logo
