debian etch sh3 and sh4

debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Yutaro Ebihara]

hi all.

please let me introduce my archives.
this is debian etch sh3 and sh4
http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh/

base tar balls.
http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh/base/etch/


you can use following apt line in your sh-box.

landy2:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh etch main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/       etch main contrib non-free


you can see the number of packeges here.
http://www.si-linux.co.jp/wiki/silinux/index.php?DebianSH_%A5%D3%A5%EB%A5%C9%A5%DE%A5%B7%A5%F3%BE%D2%B2%F0
(sorry japanese)


all packages are build with gcc-4.1.1.

landy2:~# gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: sh4-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,
objc,obj-c++,treelang --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --with-system-zlib -
-disable-multilib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --
enable-threads=posix --enable-nls --program-suffix=-4.1 --enable-
__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-mpfr 
--enable-checking=release sh4-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Paul Mundt]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:22:51PM +0900, Yutaro Ebihara wrote:
> please let me introduce my archives.
> this is debian etch sh3 and sh4
> http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh/
> 
> base tar balls.
> http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh/base/etch/
> 
> you can use following apt line in your sh-box.
> 
> landy2:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> deb http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh etch main contrib non-free
> deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/       etch main contrib non-free
> 
These sorts of efforts seem to pop up almost every other year, and then
quickly fall in to disarray. The same can be said for the Fedora Core
ports. Is there a plan to have this work merged back in to Debian proper,
and to keep it updated?

Currently Gentoo is the only viable option for a reasonably maintained
port, and the only one supported upstream. Seeing Debian or Fedora Core
in the same state would be nice, but the porters need to get serious
about what their goals are. A one-shot build is obsolete before it hits
the mailing list.

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Adrian McMenamin]

On Tue, January 22, 2008 12:37 am, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:22:51PM +0900, Yutaro Ebihara wrote:
>> please let me introduce my archives.
>> this is debian etch sh3 and sh4
>> http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh/
>>
>> base tar balls.
>> http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh/base/etch/
>>
>> you can use following apt line in your sh-box.
>>
>> landy2:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
>> deb http://www.si-linux.co.jp/pub/debian-sh etch main contrib non-free
>> deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/       etch main contrib non-free
>>
> These sorts of efforts seem to pop up almost every other year, and then
> quickly fall in to disarray. The same can be said for the Fedora Core
> ports. Is there a plan to have this work merged back in to Debian proper,
> and to keep it updated?
>
> Currently Gentoo is the only viable option for a reasonably maintained
> port, and the only one supported upstream. Seeing Debian or Fedora Core
> in the same state would be nice, but the porters need to get serious
> about what their goals are. A one-shot build is obsolete before it hits
> the mailing list.

Whilst I obviously accept a lot of what Paul says is true, I wanted to
record my appreciation of the effort and let you know that the core at
least runs on the Dreamcast (though I need to fix it up properly to get
the filesystem to work).

If this was going to be a supported project in the longer term I'd be
willing to consider providing space and bandwidth for a European mirror.

On gentoo - the link on the wiki points to sources that are 18 months
old... is there something more up to date?

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Paul Mundt]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:54:16AM -0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> On Tue, January 22, 2008 12:37 am, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > These sorts of efforts seem to pop up almost every other year, and then
> > quickly fall in to disarray. The same can be said for the Fedora Core
> > ports. Is there a plan to have this work merged back in to Debian proper,
> > and to keep it updated?
> >
> > Currently Gentoo is the only viable option for a reasonably maintained
> > port, and the only one supported upstream. Seeing Debian or Fedora Core
> > in the same state would be nice, but the porters need to get serious
> > about what their goals are. A one-shot build is obsolete before it hits
> > the mailing list.
> 
> Whilst I obviously accept a lot of what Paul says is true, I wanted to
> record my appreciation of the effort and let you know that the core at
> least runs on the Dreamcast (though I need to fix it up properly to get
> the filesystem to work).
> 
> If this was going to be a supported project in the longer term I'd be
> willing to consider providing space and bandwidth for a European mirror.
> 
The problem is that this is still just a stop-gap solution. Debian
already has all of the mirror infrastructure in place, so the only thing
that needs to happen is effort to get this work integrated. If that's not
going to happen, this simply isn't going to go anywhere. We've seen this
with both the Debian and the Fedora Core ports in the past, and there's
no reason to imagine things will be any different this time. It's nice to
see that people are putting effort in to this, but without a push to get
it supported upstream, it will simply bitrot like all of the other ports.
This is the reality of things, good intentions aside.

> On gentoo - the link on the wiki points to sources that are 18 months
> old... is there something more up to date?

It points to stage tarballs that are still usable. You of course need
to update once you have it set up on your platform, but the stage
tarballs are a starting point only. There are updates every day, and this
continues to be the only maintained port.

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 650 bytes --]

On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> On gentoo - the link on the wiki points to sources that are 18 months
> old... is there something more up to date?

err, 18 months ?  which stages are you looking at ?

i see glibc/2007.0 which is ~8 months ... 2007.0 is actually the last release 
Gentoo has made (the 2007.1 slipped too much).  i need to update the kernel 
on my second lantank to make sure the dcache issue is fixed, and then i can 
see how stable gcc-4.1.2 is for the upcoming 2008.0 ...

while not widely advertised, binary packages are posted to 
http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/ for stable glibc/sh ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Adrian McMenamin]

On Tue, January 22, 2008 2:34 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:

>
> err, 18 months ?  which stages are you looking at ?
>
>>
I was looking at the uclibc stuff, which I admit is not a strictly fair
comparison (as the Debian stuff is linked with glibc)

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]

On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> On Tue, January 22, 2008 2:34 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > err, 18 months ?  which stages are you looking at ?
>
> I was looking at the uclibc stuff, which I admit is not a strictly fair
> comparison (as the Debian stuff is linked with glibc)

i can look at refreshing the uClibc stages this time around ... when i was 
doing 2007.0, i didnt have enough time to bounce glibc and uclibc at the 
sametime
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Adrian McMenamin]

On Tue, January 22, 2008 10:49 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
>> On Tue, January 22, 2008 2:34 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > err, 18 months ?  which stages are you looking at ?
>>
>> I was looking at the uclibc stuff, which I admit is not a strictly fair
>> comparison (as the Debian stuff is linked with glibc)
>
> i can look at refreshing the uClibc stages this time around ... when i was
> doing 2007.0, i didnt have enough time to bounce glibc and uclibc at the
> sametime


How good is emerge when memory is in short supply in the glibc versions?
apt/dpkg is a pig - takes forever and then OOMs :(

(But I am still trying to get the alsa stuff installed that way so I can
finally see if it is my driver or my setup that is at fault)

The alternative might be to try the dreaded swap-over-nfs but that didn't
work last time I tried it (a few years ago now)

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Manuel Lauss]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 09:29:47AM -0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> On Tue, January 22, 2008 10:49 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> >> On Tue, January 22, 2008 2:34 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > err, 18 months ?  which stages are you looking at ?
> >>
> >> I was looking at the uclibc stuff, which I admit is not a strictly fair
> >> comparison (as the Debian stuff is linked with glibc)
> >
> > i can look at refreshing the uClibc stages this time around ... when i was
> > doing 2007.0, i didnt have enough time to bounce glibc and uclibc at the
> > sametime
> 
> 
> How good is emerge when memory is in short supply in the glibc versions?
> apt/dpkg is a pig - takes forever and then OOMs :(

All you need is a bit of swap (CF cards, ..) and distcc.  This way I was
able to emerge current XFCE and qt-4.3.3 with 64MB RAM. Patience is a 
virtue in this case ;-)
 
Manuel Lauss

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Paul Mundt]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 09:29:47AM -0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> > On Tue, January 22, 2008 10:49 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> > >> On Tue, January 22, 2008 2:34 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> > err, 18 months ?  which stages are you looking at ?
> > >>
> > >> I was looking at the uclibc stuff, which I admit is not a strictly fair
> > >> comparison (as the Debian stuff is linked with glibc)
> > >
> > > i can look at refreshing the uClibc stages this time around ... when i was
> > > doing 2007.0, i didnt have enough time to bounce glibc and uclibc at the
> > > sametime
> > 
> > 
> > How good is emerge when memory is in short supply in the glibc versions?
> > apt/dpkg is a pig - takes forever and then OOMs :(
> 
> All you need is a bit of swap (CF cards, ..) and distcc.  This way I was
> able to emerge current XFCE and qt-4.3.3 with 64MB RAM. Patience is a 
> virtue in this case ;-)
>  
In 16MB you will always be bordering on thrashing just trying to do _any_
basic tasks. Your options are realistically limited to busybox or
throwing the damn thing out (the recommended option). Doing anything more
involved than that was pretty questionable back when the kernel used a
lot less memory, and trying to do builds in that environment is well past
absurdity these days. 64MB is painful, but at least workable.

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Adrian McMenamin]

On Wed, January 23, 2008 9:53 am, Paul Mundt wrote:
> In 16MB you will always be bordering on thrashing just trying to do _any_
> basic tasks. Your options are realistically limited to busybox or
> throwing the damn thing out (the recommended option). Doing anything more
> involved than that was pretty questionable back when the kernel used a
> lot less memory, and trying to do builds in that environment is well past
> absurdity these days. 64MB is painful, but at least workable.
>
You really are like the Kerryman who, when asked how to get to Dublin said
"well, I wouldn't start from here." :)

I don't mind the thrashing if it gets me something that works and which
can later be used as the basis of a "distro" - which is my aim here.

Anyone know how stable swap over nfs is these days? Speed is a secondary
consideration.

NB: CF or similar isn't an option. In theory you could put a very small
swap partition on the Dreamcast's VMUs but access to that is likely to be
much slower even than NFS - as it would be rationed to 60 times per
second.

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> On Wed, January 23, 2008 9:53 am, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > In 16MB you will always be bordering on thrashing just trying to do _any_
> > basic tasks. Your options are realistically limited to busybox or
> > throwing the damn thing out (the recommended option). Doing anything more
> > involved than that was pretty questionable back when the kernel used a
> > lot less memory, and trying to do builds in that environment is well past
> > absurdity these days. 64MB is painful, but at least workable.
>
> You really are like the Kerryman who, when asked how to get to Dublin said
> "well, I wouldn't start from here." :)
>
> I don't mind the thrashing if it gets me something that works and which
> can later be used as the basis of a "distro" - which is my aim here.
>
> Anyone know how stable swap over nfs is these days? Speed is a secondary
> consideration.
>
> NB: CF or similar isn't an option. In theory you could put a very small
> swap partition on the Dreamcast's VMUs but access to that is likely to be
> much slower even than NFS - as it would be rationed to 60 times per
> second.

i used to build on the dreamcast, but the swapping was terrible so i gave up 
and just bought a lantank as it has 64megs ;)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: debian etch sh3 and sh4

[Kristoffer Ericson]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:16:43 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> > On Wed, January 23, 2008 9:53 am, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > > In 16MB you will always be bordering on thrashing just trying to do _any_
> > > basic tasks. Your options are realistically limited to busybox or
> > > throwing the damn thing out (the recommended option). Doing anything more
> > > involved than that was pretty questionable back when the kernel used a
> > > lot less memory, and trying to do builds in that environment is well past
> > > absurdity these days. 64MB is painful, but at least workable.
> >
> > You really are like the Kerryman who, when asked how to get to Dublin said
> > "well, I wouldn't start from here." :)
> >
> > I don't mind the thrashing if it gets me something that works and which
> > can later be used as the basis of a "distro" - which is my aim here.
> >
> > Anyone know how stable swap over nfs is these days? Speed is a secondary
> > consideration.
> >
> > NB: CF or similar isn't an option. In theory you could put a very small
> > swap partition on the Dreamcast's VMUs but access to that is likely to be
> > much slower even than NFS - as it would be rationed to 60 times per
> > second.
> 
> i used to build on the dreamcast, but the swapping was terrible so i gave up 
> and just bought a lantank as it has 64megs ;)
> -mike
> 

We've used ipkg for jlime, which basicly is a minimal version of apt. One would expect great speed, but unfortunantly
that isn't the case. It seems to have a hard time handling the database which is why we've split it up into
smaller pieces.
ipkg is borderline usable on an jornada with 16mb/133mhz so I doubt apt will be any better.

Personally I believe that slackware + some minimal packagemanager is the way to go. Doesn't simplify much for the user
but will be easy to access packages and also maintain diffs against the main sources. Archlinux might also be an option since
I have greater faith in pacman as a package manager, but currently there's no superH port.

I agree with paul that we need to see some commitment to getting stuff into the true release instead of providing "unsupported"/"unofficial" branches which pop up every year or so.