Subject: [FreeVMS] split with 2.4.18 or 2.6.x?
From: Roar Thronęs (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:52:55 CET
I have been wondering whether to make the split/fork with 2.4.18
or do it with a 2.6.x instead.
(Meaning a definitive move away from Linux in such a way that it takes
its own path)
Some effort needed to be able to use gcc 3.3 and newer.
Might get some less functionality and older drivers.
Can have uml with backtracing.
We are already using it.
Might get a better uml.
We get some newer drivers and more functionality.
We might have to cut away those drivers and functionality anyway, or
be slowed down in the process of changing more stuff than with 2.4.18.
2.6.0 is not in sync regarding uml; need a patch from test9.
Can not use gcc 2.96 to compile uml. (And looses backtracing)
It might demand too much effort.
I have begun to look at 2.6.0, but have gotten some problems.
Uml w/o MM and I/O boots, 386 on PC and bochs w/o MM and I/O locks
before starting sh, and have not gotten any kernel with MM and I/O to compile.
(The MM and I/O changes since 2.4.18 might have some tricky stuff.)
Right now I am inclined to stick with 2.4.18 and do a split/fork with it.
-- Liste de diffusion FreeVMS Pour se désinscrire : mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:55:11 CET