On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:26:33PM +0100, RISKO Gergely wrote: > Hello Kurt, > > Can you then give me an account to the machine, which is _exactly_ > equivalent to the buildd? I tested it on pergolesi, and it worked > great (of course I couldn't do a full build, because of missing build > dependencies).
You should mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get access to ravel.hpc2n.umu.se. Afaik pergolesi is really outdated. > And I need _real_ information about why amd64 hackers thought, that > this code supports amd64. I thought it supported it, since it does have various parts where it does seem to support it. With a few minor changes I already was able to build more. > What I see about this amd64 thing is the following anyway: > 1. report arrives, that the code supports amd64, so build for it > 2. it build on a developer machine, which is opened for me > 3. you say, that that the assembly is for i386 only. I'm saying that it still needs a little work. I currently don't have time to look at it, but I don't think it should be that hard to get it working. I think it's needing a few more places where the code for i386 and x86_64 get seperated. > I also need test results about booting with the built code (if we can > build it once). I'm afraid I don't have the hardware to test that it works. > I ask for _real_ help from the amd64 team, or I will simply go back > for i386 only with etherboot. Of course I think that it is not a > problem at all for Debian while upstream doesn't support amd64. If > the porter team has no time or ability to produce a buildable and > workable patch, I don't think that I have a real chance to success. I do not have a problem with it that it stays i386 for now. But maybe someone else will take a look at it. Anyway, if you could atleast keep this bug open, it might be useful for someone else who wants to take a look at it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
