BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Paul Wise via nm
Hi folks,

I was doing some cleanup on Debian usertags and I noticed that some
8 bugs were associated with the non-existent debian-m68k mailing list
while 53 other m68k related bugs were instead associated with the
debian-68k mailing list. I then moved the 8 bugs over to debian-68k
using the commands below and after I did that I noticed that
Aaron M.Ucko (CCed) had filed a new m68k bug with the debian-m68k
mailing list as the user. I contacted him and he mentioned that the
official advice on the wiki says to use the debian-m68k list.

https://bugs.debian.org/884467
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchitectureTags

The majority of folks using those tags have used debian-68k instead of
debian-m68k, I don't think having a split between the two helps and I
think it makes more sense to use the official list name.
Does anyone have any opinion on standardising on debian-68k?

In addition, during my investigation, I noticed there are a number of
bugs with usertags for the [hidden email] user. I wonder if it
would also be a good idea to move those to debian-68k/debian-m68k?

Once there is consensus, I will be happy to update the wiki and
move any of the bugs to the chosen user(s).

user [hidden email]
usertags 405929 - m68k
usertags 503383 - m68k
usertags 880517 - m68k
usertags 881736 - m68k
usertags 882189 - m68k
usertags 882452 - m68k
usertags 882555 - m68k
usertags 883038 - m68k
usertags 884467 - m68k
user [hidden email]
usertags 405929 + m68k
usertags 503383 + m68k
usertags 880517 + m68k
usertags 881736 + m68k
usertags 882189 + m68k
usertags 882452 + m68k
usertags 882555 + m68k
usertags 883038 + m68k
usertags 884467 + m68k

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Ingo Jürgensmann-10
Am 19.12.2017 um 07:02 schrieb Paul Wise <[hidden email]>:

> I was doing some cleanup on Debian usertags and I noticed that some
> 8 bugs were associated with the non-existent debian-m68k mailing list
> while 53 other m68k related bugs were instead associated with the
> debian-68k mailing list. I then moved the 8 bugs over to debian-68k
> using the commands below and after I did that I noticed that
> Aaron M.Ucko (CCed) had filed a new m68k bug with the debian-m68k
> mailing list as the user. I contacted him and he mentioned that the
> official advice on the wiki says to use the debian-m68k list.
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/884467
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchitectureTags
>
> The majority of folks using those tags have used debian-68k instead of
> debian-m68k, I don't think having a split between the two helps and I
> think it makes more sense to use the official list name.
> Does anyone have any opinion on standardising on debian-68k?

From my point of view, all mentions and references should point to debian-68k mailing list. The wiki page needs to be updated as well to point to the correct ML, of course.

Haven’t looked into the details, but would changing the addresses of [hidden email] also change their mailing list archive links? Is that archive still online? If so, it would be good to have the links being kept, but the references for new replies to be changed.

Maybe Adrian can comment also as he is the most active porter.

--
Ciao...          //        http://blog.windfluechter.net
      Ingo     \X/     XMPP: [hidden email]
       
gpg pubkey:  http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Paul Wise via nm
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 07:33 +0100, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:

> Haven’t looked into the details, but would changing the addresses of
> [hidden email] also change their mailing list archive links?
> Is that archive still online? If so, it would be good to have the
> links being kept, but the references for new replies to be changed.

I'm only talking about Debian BTS usertags here, so moving bugs from
[hidden email] to debian-68k would only affect these pages:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=m68k-build@...
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?user=m68k-build@...

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-68k@...
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?user=debian-68k@...

nocrew.org is deadish and I can't find any mention of the m68k-build list:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050112052713/http://www.nocrew.org:80/lists.html?list=m68k-build

Recent nocrew.org email addresses I've seen, who might be able to help:

Lars Brinkhoff <[hidden email]>
James Troup <[hidden email]>

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
In reply to this post by Paul Wise via nm
Hi Pabs!

On 12/19/2017 07:02 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> I was doing some cleanup on Debian usertags and I noticed that some
> 8 bugs were associated with the non-existent debian-m68k mailing list
> while 53 other m68k related bugs were instead associated with the
> debian-68k mailing list. I then moved the 8 bugs over to debian-68k
> using the commands below and after I did that I noticed that

Thanks for cleaning this up!

> Aaron M.Ucko (CCed) had filed a new m68k bug with the debian-m68k
> mailing list as the user. I contacted him and he mentioned that the
> official advice on the wiki says to use the debian-m68k list.

Yes, the wiki is unfortunately not always the best resource to rely
on when it comes to these things in Debian. Currently the best
way is to ask on the appropriate mailing lists.

> https://bugs.debian.org/884467
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchitectureTags
>
> The majority of folks using those tags have used debian-68k instead of
> debian-m68k, I don't think having a split between the two helps and I
> think it makes more sense to use the official list name.
> Does anyone have any opinion on standardising on debian-68k?

Yes, please standardize on debian-68k.

> In addition, during my investigation, I noticed there are a number of
> bugs with usertags for the [hidden email] user. I wonder if it
> would also be a good idea to move those to debian-68k/debian-m68k?

Yes, please. I assume that [hidden email] is the historic
mailing list for Debian's m68k porters. Christian will most
likely know this.

> Once there is consensus, I will be happy to update the wiki and
> move any of the bugs to the chosen user(s).
>
> user [hidden email]
> usertags 405929 - m68k
> usertags 503383 - m68k
> usertags 880517 - m68k
> usertags 881736 - m68k
> usertags 882189 - m68k
> usertags 882452 - m68k
> usertags 882555 - m68k
> usertags 883038 - m68k
> usertags 884467 - m68k
> user [hidden email]
> usertags 405929 + m68k
> usertags 503383 + m68k
> usertags 880517 + m68k
> usertags 881736 + m68k
> usertags 882189 + m68k
> usertags 882452 + m68k
> usertags 882555 + m68k
> usertags 883038 + m68k
> usertags 884467 + m68k

This is very much appreciated, thank you!

Also, @Aaron: Thanks for filing these bug reports. But may I ask you to
always to include X-Debbugs-CC with the appropriate porters mailing
list? Then the people who are primarily interested in fixing the bugs
(the porters) will get notified as well.

Thus:

User: [hidden email]
Usertags: m68k
X-Debbugs-CC: [hidden email]

Thanks to everyone supporting Debian Ports! Much appreciated!

Adrian

--
  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - [hidden email]
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - [hidden email]
   `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Christian T. Steigies
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:57:16AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> Yes, please. I assume that [hidden email] is the historic
> mailing list for Debian's m68k porters. Christian will most
> likely know this.

IIRC, mailing lists where not even invented when I joined m68k...
We coordinated by picking from a list of needs-build packages prepared by
James every day. nocrew definetely sounds like an address that James used in
those days, nearly 20 years ago?

IMHO, we should have used debian-m68k from the beginning, but it is too late
to switch.

Christian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Aaron M. Ucko
In reply to this post by John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[hidden email]> writes:

> Also, @Aaron: Thanks for filing these bug reports. But may I ask you to
> always to include X-Debbugs-CC with the appropriate porters mailing
> list? Then the people who are primarily interested in fixing the bugs
> (the porters) will get notified as well.

Good idea, thanks!  Will do.

--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?amu@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Michael Schmitz-4
In reply to this post by Christian T. Steigies
Am 20.12.2017 um 00:40 schrieb Christian T. Steigies:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:57:16AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>
>> Yes, please. I assume that [hidden email] is the historic
>> mailing list for Debian's m68k porters. Christian will most
>> likely know this.
>
> IIRC, mailing lists where not even invented when I joined m68k...

Mailing lists predate m68k by a few decades, I'm sure. Anyway, we did
not use the Debian lists infrastructure in the beginning.

> We coordinated by picking from a list of needs-build packages prepared by
> James every day. nocrew definetely sounds like an address that James used in
> those days, nearly 20 years ago?

Yes, that was the list coordinating the autobuilders - James ran that
one (and AFAIR he wrote a great deal of buildd and wanna-build and the
infrastructure feeding into the build database). Haven't heard from
James in a long time though.

Having access to the m68k-build archive would be nice but that's
probably long lost.

>
> IMHO, we should have used debian-m68k from the beginning, but it is too late
> to switch.

I remember there were some heated discussions about the list name, and
it was decided to stick with debian-68k. We had too much time on our
hands back then, clearly. Happy days...

I don't see why a list alias can't be used to collect mail coming in on
the old list name (or the new, more logical one if that's easier on the
sites archiving the list).

Cheers,

        Michael

>
> Christian
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Paul Wise via nm
Michael Schmitz wrote:

> I don't see why a list alias can't be used to collect mail coming in on
> the old list name (or the new, more logical one if that's easier on the
> sites archiving the list).

An alias is already in place according to that wiki page.

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BTS usertags: user debian-68k@l.d.o or debian-m68k@l.d.o for m68k?

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:

> Yes, the wiki is unfortunately not always the best resource to rely
> on when it comes to these things in Debian. Currently the best
> way is to ask on the appropriate mailing lists.

Uh, mailing lists are a horrible way to do documentation :)

I've updated the wiki page to reflect the discussion here/etc.

> Yes, please standardize on debian-68k.

Wiki updated, usertags need no changes.

> Yes, please. I assume that [hidden email] is the historic
> mailing list for Debian's m68k porters.

I've now moved all of the usertags to debian-68k and made a few
modifications to make them more consistent:

bts user [hidden email]
usertags 270340 - gcc-40
usertags 317475 - gcc-40
usertags 321486 - gcc-40
usertags 323133 - gcc-40
usertags 323426 - gcc-40
usertags 323686 - gcc-40
usertags 333536 - gcc-40
usertags 340293 - gcc-40
usertags 342121 - gcc-40
usertags 343692 - gcc-40
usertags 344041 - gcc-40
usertags 353618 - gcc-40
usertags 353719 - gcc-40
usertags 359703 - gcc-40
usertags 375519 - gcc-40
usertags 375522 - gcc-40
usertags 381022 - gcc-40
usertags 381572 - gcc-40
usertags 385021 - gcc-40
usertags 359281 - gcc-4.0
usertags 162019 - m68k
usertags 198075 - m68k
usertags 212043 - m68k
usertags 270340 - m68k
usertags 312830 - m68k
usertags 315500 - m68k
usertags 317475 - m68k
usertags 321486 - m68k
usertags 322027 - m68k
usertags 323133 - m68k
usertags 323426 - m68k
usertags 323686 - m68k
usertags 326905 - m68k
usertags 327328 - m68k
usertags 327429 - m68k
usertags 327780 - m68k
usertags 329092 - m68k
usertags 330635 - m68k
usertags 332829 - m68k
usertags 333536 - m68k
usertags 334006 - m68k
usertags 334917 - m68k
usertags 335516 - m68k
usertags 335837 - m68k
usertags 336283 - m68k
usertags 336289 - m68k
usertags 337861 - m68k
usertags 338087 - m68k
usertags 338100 - m68k
usertags 338297 - m68k
usertags 338433 - m68k
usertags 338469 - m68k
usertags 339517 - m68k
usertags 340293 - m68k
usertags 340563 - m68k
usertags 340871 - m68k
usertags 340874 - m68k
usertags 342121 - m68k
usertags 342248 - m68k
usertags 343692 - m68k
usertags 344041 - m68k
usertags 345881 - m68k
usertags 347224 - m68k
usertags 347252 - m68k
usertags 348010 - m68k
usertags 350594 - m68k
usertags 350595 - m68k
usertags 350596 - m68k
usertags 350730 - m68k
usertags 350731 - m68k
usertags 350732 - m68k
usertags 350757 - m68k
usertags 351802 - m68k
usertags 351804 - m68k
usertags 352690 - m68k
usertags 353618 - m68k
usertags 353719 - m68k
usertags 353853 - m68k
usertags 356707 - m68k
usertags 356711 - m68k
usertags 357144 - m68k
usertags 359273 - m68k
usertags 359281 - m68k
usertags 359325 - m68k
usertags 359703 - m68k
usertags 360586 - m68k
usertags 360736 - m68k
usertags 360737 - m68k
usertags 360738 - m68k
usertags 360739 - m68k
usertags 360740 - m68k
usertags 360742 - m68k
usertags 360743 - m68k
usertags 360745 - m68k
usertags 360748 - m68k
usertags 360750 - m68k
usertags 360751 - m68k
usertags 362032 - m68k
usertags 362593 - m68k
usertags 362614 - m68k
usertags 363318 - m68k
usertags 365861 - m68k
usertags 367411 - m68k
usertags 367703 - m68k
usertags 368757 - m68k
usertags 374647 - m68k
usertags 375519 - m68k
usertags 375522 - m68k
usertags 378355 - m68k
usertags 378356 - m68k
usertags 378599 - m68k
usertags 378719 - m68k
usertags 379371 - m68k
usertags 381022 - m68k
usertags 381039 - m68k
usertags 381572 - m68k
usertags 383747 - m68k
usertags 384456 - m68k
usertags 384565 - m68k
usertags 385021 - m68k
usertags 385327 - m68k
usertags 387459 - m68k
usertags 390516 - m68k
usertags 390879 - m68k
usertags 391030 - m68k
usertags 393601 - m68k
usertags 393754 - m68k
usertags 394565 - m68k
usertags 394575 - m68k
usertags 394578 - m68k
usertags 394581 - m68k
usertags 394587 - m68k
usertags 394592 - m68k
usertags 396220 - m68k
usertags 398659 - m68k
usertags 401585 - m68k
usertags 405664 - m68k
usertags 405673 - m68k
usertags 405676 - m68k
usertags 405677 - m68k
usertags 407185 - m68k
usertags 417404 - m68k
usertags 418563 - m68k
usertags 421609 - m68k
usertags 425399 - m68k
usertags 427490 - m68k
usertags 428870 - m68k
usertags 439830 - m68k
usertags 443633 - m68k
usertags 460152 - m68k
usertags 460154 - m68k
usertags 460156 - m68k
usertags 460710 - m68k
usertags 479573 - m68k
usertags 595496 - m68k
usertags 604603 - m68k
usertags 611691 - m68k
usertags 623971 - m68k
usertags 624769 - m68k
usertags 624833 - m68k
usertags 342248 - linux-26
usertags 327429 - pending
usertags 327780 - pending
usertags 611691 - pending
usertags 624833 - pending
usertags 626431 - pending
usertags 270340 - toolchain
usertags 312830 - toolchain
usertags 317475 - toolchain
usertags 321486 - toolchain
usertags 323133 - toolchain
usertags 323426 - toolchain
usertags 323686 - toolchain
usertags 327780 - toolchain
usertags 333536 - toolchain
usertags 338433 - toolchain
usertags 340293 - toolchain
usertags 340874 - toolchain
usertags 342121 - toolchain
usertags 343692 - toolchain
usertags 344041 - toolchain
usertags 345574 - toolchain
usertags 353618 - toolchain
usertags 353719 - toolchain
usertags 360586 - toolchain
usertags 378355 - toolchain
usertags 378599 - toolchain
usertags 378719 - toolchain
usertags 381022 - toolchain
usertags 381572 - toolchain
usertags 385021 - toolchain
usertags 385327 - toolchain
usertags 337861 - binNMU
usertags 344046 - binNMU
usertags 353719 - binNMU
usertags 360586 - binNMU
usertags 360736 - binNMU
usertags 360737 - binNMU
usertags 360738 - binNMU
usertags 360740 - binNMU
usertags 360742 - binNMU
usertags 360743 - binNMU
usertags 360745 - binNMU
usertags 360748 - binNMU
usertags 360751 - binNMU
usertags 362593 - binNMU
usertags 363318 - binNMU
usertags 365861 - binNMU
usertags 367411 - binNMU
usertags 322027 - needs-help
usertags 340563 - needs-help
usertags 407185 - needs-help
usertags 604603 - needs-help
usertags 378599 - gcc-41
usertags 385327 - gcc-41
usertags 390879 - gcc-41
usertags 401585 - gcc-41
usertags 478326 - rc-m68k
usertags 337861 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 359273 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360736 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360737 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360738 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360739 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360740 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360742 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360743 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360745 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360748 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360750 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 360751 - fixed-gcc-41
usertags 334917 - needs-port
usertags 595496 - needs-port
user [hidden email]
usertags 270340 + gcc-4.0
usertags 317475 + gcc-4.0
usertags 321486 + gcc-4.0
usertags 323133 + gcc-4.0
usertags 323426 + gcc-4.0
usertags 323686 + gcc-4.0
usertags 333536 + gcc-4.0
usertags 340293 + gcc-4.0
usertags 342121 + gcc-4.0
usertags 343692 + gcc-4.0
usertags 344041 + gcc-4.0
usertags 353618 + gcc-4.0
usertags 353719 + gcc-4.0
usertags 359703 + gcc-4.0
usertags 375519 + gcc-4.0
usertags 375522 + gcc-4.0
usertags 381022 + gcc-4.0
usertags 381572 + gcc-4.0
usertags 385021 + gcc-4.0
usertags 359281 + gcc-4.0
usertags 162019 + m68k
usertags 198075 + m68k
usertags 212043 + m68k
usertags 270340 + m68k
usertags 312830 + m68k
usertags 315500 + m68k
usertags 317475 + m68k
usertags 321486 + m68k
usertags 322027 + m68k
usertags 323133 + m68k
usertags 323426 + m68k
usertags 323686 + m68k
usertags 326905 + m68k
usertags 327328 + m68k
usertags 327429 + m68k
usertags 327780 + m68k
usertags 329092 + m68k
usertags 330635 + m68k
usertags 332829 + m68k
usertags 333536 + m68k
usertags 334006 + m68k
usertags 334917 + m68k
usertags 335516 + m68k
usertags 335837 + m68k
usertags 336283 + m68k
usertags 336289 + m68k
usertags 337861 + m68k
usertags 338087 + m68k
usertags 338100 + m68k
usertags 338297 + m68k
usertags 338433 + m68k
usertags 338469 + m68k
usertags 339517 + m68k
usertags 340293 + m68k
usertags 340563 + m68k
usertags 340871 + m68k
usertags 340874 + m68k
usertags 342121 + m68k
usertags 342248 + m68k
usertags 343692 + m68k
usertags 344041 + m68k
usertags 345881 + m68k
usertags 347224 + m68k
usertags 347252 + m68k
usertags 348010 + m68k
usertags 350594 + m68k
usertags 350595 + m68k
usertags 350596 + m68k
usertags 350730 + m68k
usertags 350731 + m68k
usertags 350732 + m68k
usertags 350757 + m68k
usertags 351802 + m68k
usertags 351804 + m68k
usertags 352690 + m68k
usertags 353618 + m68k
usertags 353719 + m68k
usertags 353853 + m68k
usertags 356707 + m68k
usertags 356711 + m68k
usertags 357144 + m68k
usertags 359273 + m68k
usertags 359281 + m68k
usertags 359325 + m68k
usertags 359703 + m68k
usertags 360586 + m68k
usertags 360736 + m68k
usertags 360737 + m68k
usertags 360738 + m68k
usertags 360739 + m68k
usertags 360740 + m68k
usertags 360742 + m68k
usertags 360743 + m68k
usertags 360745 + m68k
usertags 360748 + m68k
usertags 360750 + m68k
usertags 360751 + m68k
usertags 362032 + m68k
usertags 362593 + m68k
usertags 362614 + m68k
usertags 363318 + m68k
usertags 365861 + m68k
usertags 367411 + m68k
usertags 367703 + m68k
usertags 368757 + m68k
usertags 374647 + m68k
usertags 375519 + m68k
usertags 375522 + m68k
usertags 378355 + m68k
usertags 378356 + m68k
usertags 378599 + m68k
usertags 378719 + m68k
usertags 379371 + m68k
usertags 381022 + m68k
usertags 381039 + m68k
usertags 381572 + m68k
usertags 383747 + m68k
usertags 384456 + m68k
usertags 384565 + m68k
usertags 385021 + m68k
usertags 385327 + m68k
usertags 387459 + m68k
usertags 390516 + m68k
usertags 390879 + m68k
usertags 391030 + m68k
usertags 393601 + m68k
usertags 393754 + m68k
usertags 394565 + m68k
usertags 394575 + m68k
usertags 394578 + m68k
usertags 394581 + m68k
usertags 394587 + m68k
usertags 394592 + m68k
usertags 396220 + m68k
usertags 398659 + m68k
usertags 401585 + m68k
usertags 405664 + m68k
usertags 405673 + m68k
usertags 405676 + m68k
usertags 405677 + m68k
usertags 407185 + m68k
usertags 417404 + m68k
usertags 418563 + m68k
usertags 421609 + m68k
usertags 425399 + m68k
usertags 427490 + m68k
usertags 428870 + m68k
usertags 439830 + m68k
usertags 443633 + m68k
usertags 460152 + m68k
usertags 460154 + m68k
usertags 460156 + m68k
usertags 460710 + m68k
usertags 479573 + m68k
usertags 595496 + m68k
usertags 604603 + m68k
usertags 611691 + m68k
usertags 623971 + m68k
usertags 624769 + m68k
usertags 624833 + m68k
usertags 342248 + linux-2.6
usertags 327429 + pending
usertags 327780 + pending
usertags 611691 + pending
usertags 624833 + pending
usertags 626431 + pending
usertags 270340 + toolchain
usertags 312830 + toolchain
usertags 317475 + toolchain
usertags 321486 + toolchain
usertags 323133 + toolchain
usertags 323426 + toolchain
usertags 323686 + toolchain
usertags 327780 + toolchain
usertags 333536 + toolchain
usertags 338433 + toolchain
usertags 340293 + toolchain
usertags 340874 + toolchain
usertags 342121 + toolchain
usertags 343692 + toolchain
usertags 344041 + toolchain
usertags 345574 + toolchain
usertags 353618 + toolchain
usertags 353719 + toolchain
usertags 360586 + toolchain
usertags 378355 + toolchain
usertags 378599 + toolchain
usertags 378719 + toolchain
usertags 381022 + toolchain
usertags 381572 + toolchain
usertags 385021 + toolchain
usertags 385327 + toolchain
usertags 337861 + binNMU
usertags 344046 + binNMU
usertags 353719 + binNMU
usertags 360586 + binNMU
usertags 360736 + binNMU
usertags 360737 + binNMU
usertags 360738 + binNMU
usertags 360740 + binNMU
usertags 360742 + binNMU
usertags 360743 + binNMU
usertags 360745 + binNMU
usertags 360748 + binNMU
usertags 360751 + binNMU
usertags 362593 + binNMU
usertags 363318 + binNMU
usertags 365861 + binNMU
usertags 367411 + binNMU
usertags 322027 + needs-help
usertags 340563 + needs-help
usertags 407185 + needs-help
usertags 604603 + needs-help
usertags 378599 + gcc-4.1
usertags 385327 + gcc-4.1
usertags 390879 + gcc-4.1
usertags 401585 + gcc-4.1
usertags 478326 + rc-m68k
usertags 337861 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 359273 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360736 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360737 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360738 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360739 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360740 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360742 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360743 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360745 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360748 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360750 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 360751 + fixed-gcc-4.1
usertags 334917 + needs-port
usertags 595496 + needs-port

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Help installing Debian on an LCII macintosh

tom lukeywood
Hello I am trying to install Debian on my old LCII i found recently found in an attic and I am currently trying to find an install disk to use.

i have found this page: http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/etch-m68k/

but it cant find anything that looks like a Debian installer floppy image.

Where are the floppy images for Debian etch m68k?
also my LC II has 8MB of ram.
Is it reasonably to run Debian etch or should i try Potato instead?

thanks in advance.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help installing Debian on an LCII macintosh

Finn Thain
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017, tom lukeywood wrote:

> Hello I am trying to install Debian on my old LCII i found recently
> found in an attic and I am currently trying to find an install disk to
> use.
>
> i have found this page:
> http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/etch-m68k/
>
> but it cant find anything that looks like a Debian installer floppy
> image.
>
> Where are the floppy images for Debian etch m68k?

Etch was never officially released for m68k. I don't recall any floppy
images but Stephen Marenka produced an ISO available here:
https://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/m68k/cds/daily/debian-etch-m68k-m68k-netinst.iso

The etch-m68k installer does require some kernel parameters. Please see,
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/M68k

> also my LC II has 8MB of ram.
> Is it reasonably to run Debian etch or should i try Potato instead?
>

The installation guide says that Potato only requires 5 MB of RAM. Sarge
requires 32 MB. This suggests that the Etch installer may not succeed.

> thanks in advance.
>

If I was attempting this, I'd put the swap partition on solid state
storage (e.g. SCSI2SD) and fit the maximum RAM and an external CD-ROM
drive (or use the hd-media method).

A number of Mac device drivers in the old kernel releases are unstable
so I recommend you use a recent kernel binary instead:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-mac68k/files/

HTH

--

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help installing Debian on an LCII macintosh

Laurent Vivier-5
Le 31/12/2017 à 00:02, Finn Thain a écrit :

> On Sat, 30 Dec 2017, tom lukeywood wrote:
>
>> Hello I am trying to install Debian on my old LCII i found recently
>> found in an attic and I am currently trying to find an install disk to
>> use.
>>
>> i have found this page:
>> http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/etch-m68k/
>>
>> but it cant find anything that looks like a Debian installer floppy
>> image.
>>
>> Where are the floppy images for Debian etch m68k?
>
> Etch was never officially released for m68k. I don't recall any floppy
> images but Stephen Marenka produced an ISO available here:
> https://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/m68k/cds/daily/debian-etch-m68k-m68k-netinst.iso
>
> The etch-m68k installer does require some kernel parameters. Please see,
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/M68k
>
>> also my LC II has 8MB of ram.
>> Is it reasonably to run Debian etch or should i try Potato instead?
>>
>
> The installation guide says that Potato only requires 5 MB of RAM. Sarge
> requires 32 MB. This suggests that the Etch installer may not succeed.

You can find a debian-installer on a bootable floppy here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/emile/files/emile-debian-installer/emile-debian-installer-0.12/

I don't remember which release it is, perhaps woody.

Thanks,
Laurent

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help installing Debian on an LCII macintosh

tom lukeywood
thanks i will try it

--
  tom lukeywood
  [hidden email]

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017, at 4:06 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:

> Le 31/12/2017 à 00:02, Finn Thain a écrit :
> > On Sat, 30 Dec 2017, tom lukeywood wrote:
> >
> >> Hello I am trying to install Debian on my old LCII i found recently
> >> found in an attic and I am currently trying to find an install disk to
> >> use.
> >>
> >> i have found this page:
> >> http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/etch-m68k/
> >>
> >> but it cant find anything that looks like a Debian installer floppy
> >> image.
> >>
> >> Where are the floppy images for Debian etch m68k?
> >
> > Etch was never officially released for m68k. I don't recall any floppy
> > images but Stephen Marenka produced an ISO available here:
> > https://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/m68k/cds/daily/debian-etch-m68k-m68k-netinst.iso
> >
> > The etch-m68k installer does require some kernel parameters. Please see,
> > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/M68k
> >
> >> also my LC II has 8MB of ram.
> >> Is it reasonably to run Debian etch or should i try Potato instead?
> >>
> >
> > The installation guide says that Potato only requires 5 MB of RAM. Sarge
> > requires 32 MB. This suggests that the Etch installer may not succeed.
>
> You can find a debian-installer on a bootable floppy here:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/emile/files/emile-debian-installer/emile-debian-installer-0.12/
>
> I don't remember which release it is, perhaps woody.
>
> Thanks,
> Laurent
>