Re: Sid on ultra1 status

2018-08-14 19:32 GMT+02:00 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : > Are you booting with a serial console? If yes, try adding "console=ttyS0" > or whatever is your serial device. Although that *should* be added > automatically. No, unfortunately I don't have serial-capable hardware (or cable) were the

Re: Sid on ultra1 status

On 08/14/2018 06:05 PM, Romain Dolbeau wrote: > Trying to install from the 2018-05-18 image doesn't work. The system > hangs after displaying "starting syslogd, klogd". I tried > BOOT_DEBUG=3, the first two shells are fine - and it seems the disks > are seen on the ESP SCSI. Immediately after the

Re: Sid on ultra1 status

2018-08-14 18:11 GMT+02:00 Romain Dolbeau : > Does it mean that when grub 'search' for the /boot UUID, it gets the > wrong device entry ? (missing @sd1,0) There's definitely a bug somewhere, as 'ls' in the grub command line also generates the errors and hang... However - when loading, 'grub'

Re: Sid on ultra1 status

> 1) when grub starts, after "GRUB Loading kernel", I have two error lines: > # > error: out of memory. > error: no suitable video mode found. > # > then I get the menu just fine anyway. I believe this is 'normal', I got the same with two different video adapters. (Creator3D and

Re: Sid on ultra1 status

> 1) when grub starts, after "GRUB Loading kernel", I have two error lines: > # > error: out of memory. > error: no suitable video mode found. > # > then I get the menu just fine anyway. > 2) after selecting the Debian entry from the menu I get: > # > Recalibrate failed. The floppy

Sid on ultra1 status

Hello, Quicl status update on running current Sid on my Ultra 1 200E (w/ 1 GiB of RAM and an horizontal FFB2+ in the UPA slot). Upgrading my old install to what was available august 11, including kernel 4.6, went just fine. The machine boots with Silo, and everything is fine. Trying to install

Rust architecture status

Please answer to pkg-rust-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org. Don't answer to debian-ports@l.d.o (just let your mail client honor the Reply-To field). Hello! I would like to a quick heads-up regarding the architecture status of Rust after having had at the possibilities to get it bootstrapped

Re: Current status of OpenJDK-9 on sparc64

;& loc.type() == Location::float_in_dbl), "Sparc does not handle callee-save floats yet" ); --- openjdk/hotspot/src/share/vm/runtime/arguments.cpp.old 2014-01-14 21:26:34.0 + +++ openjdk/hotspot/src/share/vm/runtime/arguments.cpp 2014-01-15 10:55:37.043084056 + @@ -199

Current status of OpenJDK-9 on sparc64

ong)' /<>/build-zero/hotspot/variant-zero/libjvm/objs/blockOffsetTable.o:./src/hotspot/make/./src/hotspot/src/share/vm/gc/shared/blockOffsetTable.hpp:159: more undefined references to `memset_with_concurrent_readers(void*, int, unsigned long)' follow collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status if tes

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

y have 6 machines up > with remote power and remote console (of course that being development > boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some > machines require a button press but local admins are great and always > happy to help. > > If none steps up explaining w

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > (sorry for jumping in late here) > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote: > Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and > big-endian vs little-endian. > > The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based > on PowerPC, and one source that I read

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and big-endian vs little-endian. The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based on PowerPC, and one source that I read mentioned little-endian, likely for binary file compatibility with files produced on Intel x86

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-20 10:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: 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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > 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. The

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:05 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Also I suspect many users of 64 bit capable freescale chips > (e5500 and e6500 cores) are running 32 bit powerpc since they > don't have enough ram to actually really gain anything > from going to 64 bit, and the ppc64 port isn't done yet. Well,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

> In other words, i don't think a s390x box will ever just die. I'm sure “death” encompasses all events which might lead Debian to lose access to relevant hardware. It's not just about faults with a piece of equipment.

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

* Lennart Sorensen: > There are a lot of 32bit powerpc chips still going into embedded systems > being built today. They are not going away anytime soon. Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port?

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 19 June 2016 at 02:25, William ML Leslie wrote: > > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/18/2016 06:25 PM, William ML Leslie wrote: > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package > maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release architectures, which detracts from other work that needs to be

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

I run all sorts of PowerPC machines with various versions of Debian and I don't see that coming to end anytime soon. These are excellent and reliable machines. Biggest issues/hurdles are just graphics at the moment for both ATI/AMD and Nvidia cards, but even if that is never resolved/fixed or

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, Dan DeVoto wrote: In addition to the debian powerpc mailing list, powerpc users are active on the Ubuntu forums. I'm running Debian Sid on a Powerbook and everything works except 3D acceleration. I don't see a need to drop it. I hope that my iBook G3 will serve me for years to come!

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

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: >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-15 00:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist colledge. At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE joined with indication that Open

RE: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Here too all new amiga Ng are PPC with last generations of gpu pcie Amd boards and we are using linux expecially Debian. Luigi From: herminio.hernande...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:02:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification To: hector.o...@gmail.com CC

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Hector, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Hector Oron wrote: [...] > While working out ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I > believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a > personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

t; 5 and more coming. > * armhf/armel ports share hardware, we currently have 6 machines up > with remote power and remote console (of course that being development > boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some > machines require a button press but local admins are g

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

ines up with remote power and remote console (of course that being development boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some machines require a button press but local admins are great and always happy to help. If none steps up explaining what are DSA concerns on the ARM

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 18:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , > which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist > colledge. > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use > resources hosted by Marist. > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14 June 2016 at 20:22, wrote: > On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >>> Philipp Kern: >>> > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: Philipp Kern: > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>s390x >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/14/2016 09:06 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > Yeah, but that's unfortunately one of the universal truths of this port. > I mean in theory sometimes they turn up on eBay and people try to make > them work[1]. Hilarious talk, thanks a lot for the link :). > It also seems true for other ports where

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14/06/16 09:06, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x - *No* blockers at this time from

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Philipp Kern: > > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, > >>s390x > >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. > >>- s390,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Philipp Kern: > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>s390x >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. >>- s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. > > What is the current DSA

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/11/2016 07:33 PM, alexmcwhir...@triadic.us wrote: > Haven't given pulseeaudio a test yet as i haven't really focused on sparc > desktops. I do believe i have tests passing on util-linux and glibc, i will > have to > double check though. These are probably older versions than the unstable

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

e: https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=sparc64=sid Oh, and btw, please upstream any changes you have made in Gentoo to fix bugs on sparc64. Do you have patches available for the problems with the testsuites of pulseaudio, util-linux and glibc. Or did you skip the testsuites for thes

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

/pkgreport.cgi?tag=sparc64;users=debian-sparc@lists.debian.org You can find more issues if you look at the list of packages with state "Build Attempted" in the buildd database: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=sparc64=sid Oh, and btw, please upstream any changes

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

If it helps i have access to a decent amount of gear. E6K, V210, V215, M4000, T1000, T5120, Netra X1, Blade 150, and a V890. I've been working on the sparc64 port of Gentoo for quite a while. If there are issues that need addressed for Debian i'm willing to help out with the effort. Seems like

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. What is the current DSA concern about s390x? Kind regards

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 8:56 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state in Debian. >We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

If it would be helpful, I have access to two Sun T2000 machines, in a server room, that are in good working condition (one has a bad RAM chip, but everything else seems to work fine). If it would be helpful for the project, I'd be happy to have them be used. That being said, the machines are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Steven Chamberlain: > Hi, > Hi, > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state >> in Debian. >> We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >> Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 13:26 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > sh4: > > > The two biggest issues with sh4 are currently with binutils and the > kernel. binutils has problems when building Qt5: > There is in fact another big elephant in the room, which I have mentioned several

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

thanks to everyone explaining arch:any to me :) -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state in > Debian. > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, > Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name the most important ones. Is there

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: > Hi Niels! > > On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. >> >> I kindly ask you to: >> >> * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch. > > To give some insight what's

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 13:00, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: ppc64: This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have over 11.000 packages installed [...] sparc64: We are close to 11.000

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

ssing? But around 12000 of those source packages only build Arch: all packages. If you look at amd64's buildd stats in sid, there are ~12000 source packages in the Installed state: https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=amd64=sid i386 also has ~12000; arm64, armhf, armel, powerpc an

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm not sure whether you are talking about source or binary packages but > sid/amd64 has over 24000 source packages and over 5 binary packages, > so I would call the above "on par". Or what am I missing? There are just around 12,000 source

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > ppc64: > > This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have > over > 11.000 packages installed [...] > sparc64: > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. I'm not sure whether you are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Niels! On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. > > I kindly ask you to: > > * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch. To give some insight what's happening in Debian Ports. We have two

[Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters. While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with the architecture qualifications. For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x -

Re: Status

ding to the current MAINTAINERS file (I'm not loud, the actual file name is all caps), M68K has "Orphan" status. Which probably mean that you gonna have to CC Peter himself. Perhaps you would like to be a m68k mainainer? You cope with debian-sparc very well. :-) Artyom -- Regards, Artyom Ta

Re: Status

On 04/15/2016 12:52 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > This misinformation made me feel obliged to fix it in the upstream. > So, today's QEMU git can boot FreeBSD/sparc64. Don't know though > whether it's really relevant for anyone at debian-sparc mailing list. > :-) Awesome, thanks a lot! > (15+

Re: Status

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Michael-John Turner > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64

Re: Status

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Michael-John Turner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64 emulation is pretty >> usable already, I have installed the sparc64 netinst images

Re: Status

On 07/04/16 10:29, Michael-John Turner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64 emulation is pretty >> usable already, I have installed the sparc64 netinst images that I built >> without any

Re: Status

On 07/04/16 10:12, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hi Michael! > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Michael-John Turner wrote: >> >>> >> >> I believe that will only work on x86 systems - KVM isn't supported on SPARC. >> QEMU has some early emulation support for 64-bit SPARC

Re: Status

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:50AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > The document you linked is over 6 years old! sparc64 emulation is pretty > usable already, I have installed the sparc64 netinst images that I built > without any problems. Ah, I missed the date at the bottom of the page

Re: Status

Hi Michael! > On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Michael-John Turner wrote: > >> > > I believe that will only work on x86 systems - KVM isn't supported on SPARC. > QEMU has some early emulation support for 64-bit SPARC hardware but it's > not really usable yet[1]. The document

Re: Status

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:38:25AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 04/04/2016 05:04 AM, Jerome Ibanes wrote: > > * Does Debian/sparc64 offer any binary compatibility layer for solaris > > 10/sparc64 binaries? > > No, unfortunately not. You would have to resort to kvm to install > an

Re: Status

On 04/04/2016 05:04 AM, Jerome Ibanes wrote: > A few questions related to migrating a solaris 10/sparc64 only > application; which isn't available for other platforms. > > * Does Debian/sparc64 offer any binary compatibility layer for solaris > 10/sparc64 binaries? No, unfortunately not. You

Status

List, A few questions related to migrating a solaris 10/sparc64 only application; which isn't available for other platforms. * Does Debian/sparc64 offer any binary compatibility layer for solaris 10/sparc64 binaries? * Does Debian/sparc64 have support for X11/Xorg, and if so, which video cards

Re: Quick status update on sparc64

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:10 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Over the past weeks, we have made substantial progress in catching up > with the build queue and the number of packages which are up-to-date > in the sparc64 port are now over 8400 which means we

Quick status update on sparc64

Hi! Over the past weeks, we have made substantial progress in catching up with the build queue and the number of packages which are up-to-date in the sparc64 port are now over 8400 which means we have built more than 700 packages since I started my thread with the subjet "Resurrecting Debian on

Re: Sparc status ?

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org 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.

Re: Sparc status ?

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

Re: Sparc status ?

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 issue).

Re: Sparc status ?

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? I'd

Re: Sparc status ?

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

Re: Sparc status ?

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 (3.2) nor

Re: Sparc status ?

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-4.6 as

Re: Sparc status ?

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 is

Re: Sparc status ?

://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2009/08/msg00010.html Another possibly relevant bit is that Aurelien Jarno started working on an unofficial sparc64 port a while ago, but the current status of it is unknown to me. See, for example https://wiki.debian.org/Sparc64 Cheers. Sébastien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: Sparc status ?

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:

Re: Sparc status ?

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 support or

Re: Sparc status ?

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

Re: Sparc status ?

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

Re: Sparc status ?

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

Re: Sparc status ?

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 by a

Re: Sparc status ?

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

Sparc status ?

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

Re: Sparc status ?

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 citizen

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

Hi, b...@decadent.org.uk said: I've also provided a couple of kernel patches in the past. I'm cross testing with Gentoo to ensure that bugs I report are Debian-specific or ia64-generic. I'll continue testing/software development activity on ia64 for the Jessie cycle, and more

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

Hi, I'm a long-time ia64 Debian user ( 10 years). I'm mostly focused on desktop aspects (GNOME, Iceweasel, LibreOffice, Qt Creator, C++ 3D software development) while most other ia64 users that I know are more inclined on server use. I'm not a DD/DM, but daily update my ia64 workstation, report

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 19:36 +0200, Émeric MASCHINO wrote: Hi, I'm a long-time ia64 Debian user ( 10 years). I'm mostly focused on desktop aspects (GNOME, Iceweasel, LibreOffice, Qt Creator, C++ 3D software development) while most other ia64 users that I know are more inclined on server use.

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

On 21-Sep-13, at 7:23 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: I'll continue testing/software development activity on ia64 for the Jessie cycle, and more generally, until Debian drops ia64. I'm already waiting for Wayland on ia64 and other big updates. So please, keep ia64 in the bandwagon ;-) But I

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

FWIW, I am a porter of the Alpha architecture in the following ways: - run a buildd - kernel support - work with upstreams for toolchain support - general porting work including filing bugs and patches I doubt if I will continue that for the life cycle of Jessie given that many of the former

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

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 like to get involved. will need some additional information on what is needed

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

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 like

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

On 2013-09-01 09:33, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an overview of which of the porters are (still

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

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 ia64

Re: status of ruby 1.9.1 wrt porting

be affected. - FIXED from ruby1.9.1's POV, but you really want to look at this for other packages. [armel] I've just seen that now that this one is fixed, the test suite segfaults. See https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ruby1.9.1arch=armelver=1.9.3~preview1%2Bsvn33077-1stamp=1314634969

status of ruby 1.9.1 wrt porting

at this for other packages. [armel] I've just seen that now that this one is fixed, the test suite segfaults. See https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ruby1.9.1arch=armelver=1.9.3~preview1%2Bsvn33077-1stamp=1314634969 search for 'TestFiber#test_many_fibers'. 'make test-all' to reproduce. Failures

Re: Sparc64 status / overview page

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:40:20AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: Hi Aurelien, Hi, it looks like you are the only sparc64 porter atleast I haven't found any other uploaders on debian-ports in the changes files for June. There is no status / info page about the port. Such a page

  1   2   3   >