[SM-Discuss] SMGL ISO naming
eric at sandall.us
Fri Jun 27 19:04:48 EDT 2003
> sounds reasonable to me.
> what do we do about beta releases, testing releases, or release
> candidates? (or whatever we want to call them)
> I think for the most part our ported isos, ie ppc or sparc ought to
> aim for the lowest common denominator, then the installee can optimize
> afterwards. Assuming the same kernel and software can boot a g3 or g4 we
> dont need to have an iso for both. Im not sure if it would be possible
> to combine a sparc and sparc64 iso, however im not the one porting it
> so i have no idea. I like the idea of just differentiating with sparc
> and sparc64 for now.
I agree about the lowest common denominator, but I wasn't sure how the PPC
works (haven't really played with one). As for the sparc, if we have two
separate ISOs (one for sparc and the other for sparc64) then we'll
effectively have the exact same ISOs except for the kernel (from my
understanding, compiling the userland applications as 64-bit is a waste of
time as most of them are not written to use 64-bit access, but to boot a
64-bit machine you need a 64-bit kernel).
We'd also need a separate one for the Itanium (ia64), but the Opterons
(amd64 or some such) can boot i386 code.
While we're on the porting subject, I'd like to know who's interested in
working on a port, either architectural (ppc, sparc, etc.) or kernel
(HURD, L4, etc.) so that we can (possibly) set up mailing lists for those
(perhaps smgl-port-<arch|kernel>) interested and get to work on these.
I know there are more important things than working on a port (grimoire
stability, cleaning up Sorcery, etc.), but it would be nice to have
various architectures, at least.
PGP Key Fingerprint: FCFF 26A1 BE21 08F4 BB91 FAED 1D7B 7D74 A8EF DD61
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
More information about the SM-Discuss