Subject: D68K: The next step...

From: Hamish Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 18:26 EDT

>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:57:01 -0500 (CDT),
>>>>> In message <[email-masked]>,
>>>>> llucius <[email-masked]> wrote:

llucius> Well, now that I've gone through "almost" all the debian
llucius> packages on master that I can, I'll be going back through the
llucius> bug reports that I've opened and anything that isn't being
llucius> worked on, I'll go ahead and correct it.  Most of the bug
llucius> reports have not even been acknowledged so I'm assuming that
llucius> the maintainer either doesn't have the time or the desire.

llucius> In the process I'll be fixing as many of the open bug reports
llucius> for the packages as I can (this may also involve upgrading to
llucius> the latest upstream).

llucius> If anyone has a problem with this or wants me to bypass any
llucius> particular packages, please let me know.  I don't want to
llucius> walk on any toes... B-)

Not really related to llucias' message, but I installed the
libc5_5.2.18-9.deb package from unstable/binary-m68k/base on my
machine.  I'd previously installed a (I believe self-made)
libc5-5.2.18-1.deb on my machine without problems.

The upshot is that installing libc5_5.2.18-9.deb killed my machine; no
new process could load the libc shared library.  I eventually repaired
myself by downloading a libc-5.3.12 image from uni-erlangen and
installing it "manually".  Most of the binaries on my system were
linked against 5.0.9, other than the ones which I had to recompile for
the new utmp format, which were linked against my 5.2.18.

I don't know if others have been able to get that deb archive to work,
but I thought that I'd point out my problem.

Regards,
 Hamish.

---

From: llucius <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:38:23 -0500 (CDT)

> the new utmp format, which were linked against my 5.2.18.
You need to get the new ld.so that Juergen uploaded.  It supports the 
newer binutils which I (unfortunately) had used to compile libc.

Leland

__ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth!
   oo o  oo o  o  | 
    o       o   o | [email-masked]
 o oo    o     o  | 
-- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius       (maybe one day)

---

From: "Frank Neumann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 23:27:51 +0200 (MET DST)

Hi,
Hamish wrote:

[..]
> but I thought that I'd point out my problem.

I don't know if the problems I went through during the last days are
related to yours, but I could imagine the right 'mix' of ld.so and libc
is/was your problem. I still did not really test the 'base system', but
I'm coming closer to it - the scripts to create the base.tar.gz already
work now, so the configuration steps done during installation (dinstall)
are the only step still missing.

What took me a while to find out was that when you want to run a command
in a chroot()ed environment, the 'new' / environment does not only have
to supply all required shared libraries, ld-linux.so and libdl, but also
the exact same versions (files, that is). Otherwise I always get a 
segmentation fault. Ok, after a few thoughts: ld-linux is always 'running', 
and if some pages of code are being brought in from the new root environment,
but the binary over there looks different from the one in the old /lib,
things can only go wrong.. ever seen 'text file is busy'? :}

Frank (hereby having said that he's still alive)

PS: I sent a mail to Peter Anvin (maintainer of the registered major/minor
device numbers) asking him to resolve our current minor id clash for
amigamouse vs. 'jbm'. Unfortunately he's on vacation until July 29th.

---

From: llucius <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 23:52:39 -0500 (CDT)

> amigamouse vs. 'jbm'. Unfortunately he's on vacation until July 29th.
Cool, any clue of how it will be resolved?

Leland

---

From: Juergen Menden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:40:01 +0200 (MET DST)

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Hamish Macdonald wrote:
> 
> The upshot is that installing libc5_5.2.18-9.deb killed my machine; 

sorry, didn't my warning went through? the ldso_xxx-1 package wasn't
able to use libraries compiled with the new binutils. i've uploaded
a new ld.so to master and at least since yesterday it should be in
unstable/binary-m68k/base. i've installed all base packages (and many
others) without problems with the new ld.so.

well, nevertheless i havn't already seen that package on the mirrors.
might take some more hours... :-))

ciao
jjm

-- 
Juergen Menden                   | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by me, 
tel:    +49 (89) 289 - 22387     +-----------+ are (usually) not the opinions 
e-mail: [email-masked]     | of anyone else on this planet.

Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!

---

From: "Frank Neumann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:49:22 +0200 (MET DST)

Hi,

> Cool, any clue of how it will be resolved?

Not yet - but I think one of the two candidates currently occupying minor
4 will have to be moved to another value. If it's going to be Amiga - oh
well, we'll just have to tell people about it often enough, right?

Frank

---

From: llucius <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 09:01:43 -0500 (CDT)

> well, we'll just have to tell people about it often enough, right?
That's what worries me.  B-)  Actually, I would prefer that we change.  
Then we can have both amigamouse minors together.  (I know...dumb reason B-))

Leland

---

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:48:15 +0200 (MET DST)

> Then we can have both amigamouse minors together.  (I know...dumb reason B-))

That's true, then we can have 7 and 8.

BTW, isn't it possible to warn the user with a printk if he uses 4, and remove
the warning after some releases? Cfr. when we changed the TERM from console to
linux?

Greetings,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven                     [email-masked]
Wavelets, Linux/m68k on Amiga          http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/
Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium