sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Karsten Behrmann <BearPerson AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:46:36 +0100
> This would mean that we have to either not use nptl on the ISO or not
> support
> i386 anymore. Does anyone still want an i386 ISO?
> Of course, we can always (and probably still should) offer a seperate ISO
> for 2.4 (linuxthreads, i386) and 2.6 (nptl, i486).
So, am I right in assuming that popular consent wants both of the following:
A 2.6 ISO with non-nptl glibc
A 2.4 ISO with non-nptl glibc
Both still i386.
By the way, do we need seperate build systems for the 2.4 and the 2.6?
Or do we only need to package 2 or three spells differently for the two ISOs?
So Far,
Karsten
p.s.: I did make a non-nptl chroot system on my nptl box, which was a hell
of a lot of work and tweaking. (spell and sorcery modifications)
Attachment:
pgplYlqJJkXSh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO, Andrew, 01/08/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO, David Kowis, 01/08/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO, Arjan Bouter, 01/10/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO, Eric Sandall, 01/10/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO, Karsten Behrmann, 01/08/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] i386 ISO, Benoit PAPILLAULT, 01/06/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.