Re: linuxppc-embedded: main kernel tree

[Alan Mimms <alan@packetengines.com>]

Dan,

Can you suggest a version of the 2.3.x kernel that WOULD build and work?  Is
there a simple way to retrieve it (i.e., one I can get from ftp.us.kernel.org)?
I have tried 2.3.34 and found that the 'make menuconfig' and all other ways of
simply generating a config were broken for powerpc in ways that I wasn't able
to understand.  (Looked like a missing endif or some such, but I was never sure
even after a couple of hours of study.)

What kernel source version from the "main" tree actually builds and works
pretty well for most/all of the 8xx platforms?  I am particularly interested in
the CLLF supporting kernel.

I can live with 2.3.x since I don't need ramdisk support for my intended
application.  In fact, I'm very interested in the new cramfs I have read about
as a solution for our flash based file system.  I'll probably dink with that a
bit next chance I get.

Thanks for any info...
a

On Wed, 26 Jan
2000, Dan Malek wrote: > Brendan John Simon wrote:
>
>
> > How seperate is the Linux/PPC kernel tree to the main kernel tree ?
>
> It isn't supposed to be, but.....
>
>
> > I download linux-2.2.14 and there is only support for MBX
>
>
> ....I have never merged the later 8xx updates from the 2.3.xx
> ttree into 2.2.xx.  The amount of change is a concern for a "stable"
> tree, and the couple of occasions I had the time to do this the
> tree was locked for update with Linus.  It is on my "to do" list.
>
>
> > Can support for all the embedded ports be put into the main kernel
> > source tree.
>
> The "main" tree is really the 2.3.xx tree right now, and all of
> the 8xx support is there.  For some reason, the BitKeeper 2.3.41
> version doesn't build.  I fixed a couple of problems, but now I
> am wondering if it will build for any PMac platform.......
>
>
> > That way we can all use the latest stable kernel without having to wait
> > for you (or someone else) to create a package on the ftp server.
>
>
> The only reason I put things on the server was for people that
> couldn't get access to a source tree for some reason.  I don't
> like to do that, but people got used to it so I continued.  I
> may continue to do so only for a 2.2.xx version.
>
>
> > also reduces the re-porting of board support packages.
>
> We don't have board support packages.......It just reminds me
> of horrible hacks people make so they don't have to provide
> source code.  With complete source code available, we have
> to find a better way (and use better terminology).
>
>
> > How often is the Linux/PPC kernel for workstations (PowerMacs, etc)
> > committed to the main kernel tree ?
>
> Every day?  I have the same complaint most people have expressed
> lately.  I work in the BitKeeper tree, which is supposed to be
> the official PPC tree and one step away from kernel.org.  I can't
> build it for any of my systems.  I have to go looking for something
> from Paul or Ben or someone else to get something to work......
>
> With 2.4.xx soon to happen, we should all be working from the
> latest 2.3.xx tree from kernel.org.  If it doesn't work (which
> is the case now at least for me), it must be quickly corrected.
>
> I copied linuxppc-dev on this message....so what's the deal with
> all PPC sources?  When (and from where) will I be able to download
> a kernel tree that I can build for anything?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> 	-- Dan
--
Alan Mimms     Packet Engines, Inc.     Spokane, Washington [99214-0497]
  USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, The Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, U0
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
  -- Steven Wright?

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/