Thread

  1. Re: [HACKERS] Valid ports for v6.3

    Thomas A. Szybist <szybist@boxhill.com> — 1998-02-14T20:49:14Z

    In message <34E5CE64.BA99E3D0@alumni.caltech.edu>, "Thomas G. Lockhart" writes:
    > Here is my current list for porting status for the v6.3 release. I may
    > have missed at least a few reports, e.g hpux, irix??
    > 
    > Since the porting support has changed for v6.3, if a system is not
    > tested it should be assumed to be broken. Any regression test done since
    > Feb 1 will count as "confirmed working", as long as the test ran to
    > completion and for the most part behaved properly.
    > 
    > Any machine which does not get an installation and a regression test for
    > v6.3beta will move to the unsupported list. Also, let us know if you
    > have an interest in a port even though you cannot actually do the work
    > to confirm it; that may encourage someone else to volunteer.
    > 
    > Marc/Bruce, can you help me clarify the bsdi/freebsd/netbsd/bsdxxx
    > entries? I'm not sure which are unique and what the names should be...
    > 
    >                                                        - Tom
    > 
    > *  aix/4.1.4.0-4.2 - confirmed working when built on 4.1.4.0 (Darren
    > King)
    > _  aix/3.5 - not yet tested? close enough to 4.1 to count?? (Frank
    > Dana?)
    > _  bsdi
    > _  FreeBSD/2.2.1,2.2.5 - in progress (Tatsuo)
    > ?  NetBSD/i386 version? - not yet tested but should work?
    > x  NetBSD/m68k Amiga, HP300, Mac - not yet working... (Henry Hotz)
    > *  NetBSD/sparc version? confirmed working (Tom Helbekkmo)
    > *  NetBSD/vax version? confirmed working (Tom Helbekkmo)
    > *  dgux/5.4R4.11 - patches submitted (Brian Gallew)
    > _  hpux/9.0.x
    > _  hpux/10.20
    > _  irix5
    > _  irix6/MIPS
    > _  dec/alpha - currently broken? confirmed working on v6.2.1 (Pedro)
    > _  linux/alpha - currently broken?
    > *  linux/i386 - confirmed working (Thomas)
    > ?  linux/i386/glibc2 - minor library breakage; in progress (Oliver)
    > _  mklinux/ppc - in progress (Tatsuo)
    > _  nextstep - worked with patches on v1.0.9; not working now?
    > _  sco/i386
    > _  solaris/i386 - confirmed working (Marc)
    > *  solaris/sparc/2.5.1 - confirmed working (Marc)
    > _  solaris/sparc/2.6 - in progress (Tatsuo)
    > _  sunos/sparc/4.1.4 - in progress (Tatsuo)
    > _  svr4/MIPS - dcosx and sinix/seimens-nixdorf worked on v6.1 (Frank
    > Ridderbusch?)
    > _  ultrix4 - no recent reports? obsolete port??
    > x  univel - not working now; in progress? (Billy G. Allie)
    > 
    > 
    
    I don't see linux/sparc here.  The last snapshot I tried was from 2/6.
    That ran well.  I just grapped today's (2/14) snapshot and will try that,
    and let you know.  I'm using 2.0.29 kernel. 
    
    One issue I've heard of is that _SC_OPEN_MAX is used in 
    backend/storage/file/fd.c. I later kernels, /usr/include/asm/unistd.h
    was changed. _SC_OPEN_MAX has #ifdef __KERNEL__ around it.  2.0.29 
    doesn't have the #ifdef, so I don't have this issue.
    
    I'm not what the correct fix should be.
    
    Tom Szybist
    szybist@boxhill.com