From pknirsch at redhat.com  Thu Apr 28 09:15:05 2011
From: pknirsch at redhat.com (Phil Knirsch)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:15:05 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
Message-ID: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>

Hi everyone.

Just wanted to give you all a brief heads up that Fedora on PPC as a 
secondary arch is still alive and kicking and no dead horse!

On a more serious note, we've recently been catching up to the current 
Fedora 15 packages after PowerPC moved to secondary arch status after 
Fedora 12. This took a while, but thanks to pretty powerful builders and 
concentrated effort from the PowerPC team we've gotten pretty close to 
catching up by now.

The current focus is to get the installer to work properly again. With 
the switch to Lorax, the new unified initrd and other changes we hit a 
few problems recently, but at least we've had a successful install with 
the latest mash trees on a Power7 machine recently via DVD [1].

Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size 
problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just 
too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we 
might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least, 
but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then.

Due to these installer problems we're probably not going to be able to 
have an official PowerPC release for Fedora 15, but the goal is to 
definitely get it done for Fedora 16.

Thanks to everyone working on getting PowerPC in Fedora back into shape!

For more information, feel free to visit the Fedora PowerPC wiki:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/PowerPC

Thanks & regards, Phil

[1] http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/mnt/koji/scratch/karsten/iso/

-- 
Philipp Knirsch              | Tel.:  +49-711-96437-470
Supervisor Core Services     | Fax.:  +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH                 | Email: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch at redhat.com>
Hauptstaetterstr. 58         | Web:   http://www.redhat.com/
D-70178 Stuttgart, Germany
Motd:  You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.


From wd at denx.de  Thu Apr 28 09:31:03 2011
From: wd at denx.de (Wolfgang Denk)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:31:03 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110428133103.2B6BCD52709@gemini.denx.de>

Dear Phil,

In message <4DB96859.3070700 at redhat.com> you wrote:
> 
> Just wanted to give you all a brief heads up that Fedora on PPC as a 
> secondary arch is still alive and kicking and no dead horse!

Thanks a lot for the update.

> Due to these installer problems we're probably not going to be able to 
> have an official PowerPC release for Fedora 15, but the goal is to 
> definitely get it done for Fedora 16.

Am I interpreting this right that this effctively means we will have
to run a new installation on PPC machines currently runninc F12?

I guess the chances that a yum based update from F12 to F16 are
negligible?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Extended Epstein-Heisenberg Principle: In an R & D orbit, only  2  of
the  existing 3 parameters can be defined simultaneously. The parame-
ters are: task, time and resources ($).


From dwmw2 at infradead.org  Thu Apr 28 09:32:48 2011
From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:32:48 +0100
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <20110428133103.2B6BCD52709@gemini.denx.de>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<20110428133103.2B6BCD52709@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <1303997568.2912.117.camel@macbook.infradead.org>

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:31 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Due to these installer problems we're probably not going to be able to 
> > have an official PowerPC release for Fedora 15, but the goal is to 
> > definitely get it done for Fedora 16.
> 
> Am I interpreting this right that this effctively means we will have
> to run a new installation on PPC machines currently runninc F12?

Well, if you want to do a yum update, you don't *need* the installer
initrd to work :)

There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15
packages even without an installer, surely?

-- 
dwmw2



From wd at denx.de  Thu Apr 28 09:47:43 2011
From: wd at denx.de (Wolfgang Denk)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:47:43 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <1303997568.2912.117.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<20110428133103.2B6BCD52709@gemini.denx.de>
	<1303997568.2912.117.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <20110428134743.AD884D52709@gemini.denx.de>

Dear David Woodhouse,

In message <1303997568.2912.117.camel at macbook.infradead.org> you wrote:
>
> There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15
> packages even without an installer, surely?

Did you try it?  And did it work?  Normally yum will refuse to update
when you try skipping more than a single version.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
There are no data that cannot be plotted on a straight  line  if  the
axis are chosen correctly.


From dwmw2 at infradead.org  Thu Apr 28 09:58:30 2011
From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:58:30 +0100
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <20110428134743.AD884D52709@gemini.denx.de>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<20110428133103.2B6BCD52709@gemini.denx.de>
	<1303997568.2912.117.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<20110428134743.AD884D52709@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <1303999110.2912.128.camel@macbook.infradead.org>

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:47 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Did you try it?  And did it work?  Normally yum will refuse to update
> when you try skipping more than a single version. 

Define 'refuse'. It doesn't even *know*, generally.

I *often* update by two releases at a time. Sometimes more.

-- 
dwmw2



From lemenkov at gmail.com  Thu Apr 28 10:26:00 2011
From: lemenkov at gmail.com (Peter Lemenkov)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:26:00 +0400
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <20110428134743.AD884D52709@gemini.denx.de>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<20110428133103.2B6BCD52709@gemini.denx.de>
	<1303997568.2912.117.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<20110428134743.AD884D52709@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=9d-JSyOy=55KokmLFrQvOTkE1dA@mail.gmail.com>

2011/4/28 Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de>:
> Dear David Woodhouse,
>
> In message <1303997568.2912.117.camel at macbook.infradead.org> you wrote:
>>
>> There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15
>> packages even without an installer, surely?
>
> Did you try it? ?And did it work? ?Normally yum will refuse to update
> when you try skipping more than a single version.

I tried - it almost works (you need to turn selinux into a permissive
mode before upgrade and it will require relabeling before turning it
on again).


-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.


From jwboyer at gmail.com  Thu Apr 28 13:20:08 2011
From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:20:08 -0400
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Phil Knirsch <pknirsch at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> Just wanted to give you all a brief heads up that Fedora on PPC as a
> secondary arch is still alive and kicking and no dead horse!
>
> On a more serious note, we've recently been catching up to the current
> Fedora 15 packages after PowerPC moved to secondary arch status after
> Fedora 12. This took a while, but thanks to pretty powerful builders and
> concentrated effort from the PowerPC team we've gotten pretty close to
> catching up by now.
>
> The current focus is to get the installer to work properly again. With
> the switch to Lorax, the new unified initrd and other changes we hit a
> few problems recently, but at least we've had a successful install with
> the latest mash trees on a Power7 machine recently via DVD [1].
>
> Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size
> problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just
> too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we
> might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least,
> but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then.

As noted on IRC, the DVD doesn't support ppc32 machines.  Are those
being dropped, or is it simply a temporary omission?

On a similar note, it seems the preference for packages is now ppc64
whereas in prior Fedora releases ppc was the perferred arch, even on
64-bit machines.  RHEL 6 (and SLES 11) have made that changed, but it
was rejected by FESCo prior to PowerPC being dropped as a primary
architecture.  Has the preference changed to 64-bit permanently?

josh


From dan at danny.cz  Thu Apr 28 13:28:01 2011
From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:28:01 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>

Josh Boyer p??e v ?t 28. 04. 2011 v 13:20 -0400: 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Phil Knirsch <pknirsch at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > Just wanted to give you all a brief heads up that Fedora on PPC as a
> > secondary arch is still alive and kicking and no dead horse!
> >
> > On a more serious note, we've recently been catching up to the current
> > Fedora 15 packages after PowerPC moved to secondary arch status after
> > Fedora 12. This took a while, but thanks to pretty powerful builders and
> > concentrated effort from the PowerPC team we've gotten pretty close to
> > catching up by now.
> >
> > The current focus is to get the installer to work properly again. With
> > the switch to Lorax, the new unified initrd and other changes we hit a
> > few problems recently, but at least we've had a successful install with
> > the latest mash trees on a Power7 machine recently via DVD [1].
> >
> > Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size
> > problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just
> > too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we
> > might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least,
> > but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then.
> 
> As noted on IRC, the DVD doesn't support ppc32 machines.  Are those
> being dropped, or is it simply a temporary omission?
> 
> On a similar note, it seems the preference for packages is now ppc64
> whereas in prior Fedora releases ppc was the perferred arch, even on
> 64-bit machines.  RHEL 6 (and SLES 11) have made that changed, but it
> was rejected by FESCo prior to PowerPC being dropped as a primary
> architecture.  Has the preference changed to 64-bit permanently?

we can decide it ourselves now, so I'd go with 2 branches - ppc (32-bit)
to satisfy people with eg. Mac G4 hardware and ppc64 (with 64-bit as
preferred and 32-bit as compat, it's a known fact that Fedora serves as
RHEL upstream) for G5s and IBM servers/workstations.


Dan




From jwboyer at gmail.com  Thu Apr 28 13:36:58 2011
From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:36:58 -0400
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Dan Hor?k <dan at danny.cz> wrote:
>> > Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size
>> > problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just
>> > too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we
>> > might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least,
>> > but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then.
>>
>> As noted on IRC, the DVD doesn't support ppc32 machines. ?Are those
>> being dropped, or is it simply a temporary omission?
>>
>> On a similar note, it seems the preference for packages is now ppc64
>> whereas in prior Fedora releases ppc was the perferred arch, even on
>> 64-bit machines. ?RHEL 6 (and SLES 11) have made that changed, but it
>> was rejected by FESCo prior to PowerPC being dropped as a primary
>> architecture. ?Has the preference changed to 64-bit permanently?
>
> we can decide it ourselves now, so I'd go with 2 branches - ppc (32-bit)
> to satisfy people with eg. Mac G4 hardware and ppc64 (with 64-bit as
> preferred and 32-bit as compat, it's a known fact that Fedora serves as
> RHEL upstream) for G5s and IBM servers/workstations.

I think it would be beneficial to spend a bit of time documenting the
supported hardware and composition going forward.  I have no personal
preference on the bit-size issue, but it wasn't communicated on the
list prior to my asking.

Additional items to cover are:

1) Are ppc32 machines supported?  Specifically I'm thinking of Apple
G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers
and such as well for machines in the 6xx class.

2) Which machine type are supported?  Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6
and 5.  I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support
given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not
really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes.  However, do
we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines?  (I think yes, but it's
unclear).

3) Which arch is the primary on 64-bit (seems ppc64)

josh


From dwmw2 at infradead.org  Thu Apr 28 14:24:27 2011
From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:24:27 +0100
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> 
> Additional items to cover are:
> 
> 1) Are ppc32 machines supported?  Specifically I'm thinking of Apple
> G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers
> and such as well for machines in the 6xx class.

We should definitely continue to support ppc32 machines. There are a
*lot* of embedded ppc32 machines around.

> 2) Which machine type are supported?  Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6
> and 5.  I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support
> given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not
> really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes.  However, do
> we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines?  (I think yes, but it's
> unclear).

I think we should, yes. These things aren't that hard to support.

We should try to avoid *actively* dropping things that used to work.

> 3) Which arch is the primary on 64-bit (seems ppc64)

Ick, I really don't like that decision. The 32-bit userspace is *so*
much better tested, and isn't register-starved like certain other
architectures in 32-bit mode, so the major benefit of 64-bit mode just
isn't there.

But I suppose given that IBM have driven it through for RHEL and SLES,
64-bit userspace will be getting somewhat more testing.

What packages still *don't* build in the 64-bit versions, and would be
missing (or bizarrely 32-bit-only) if we have 64-bit as the primary arch
on ppc64?

We were typically just not caring about the PPC64 ExcludeArch tracker
bug, although I have a distinct recollection of getting drunk in a
Shanghai hotel room at one point and doing OCaml support. Is that still
in the Fedora packages?

-- 
dwmw2



From bill at bfccomputing.com  Thu Apr 28 14:26:45 2011
From: bill at bfccomputing.com (Bill McGonigle)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:26:45 -0400
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DB9B165.9090801@bfccomputing.com>

On 04/28/2011 01:36 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 1) Are ppc32 machines supported?  Specifically I'm thinking of Apple
> G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers
> and such as well for machines in the 6xx class.

Just from a demand perspective, this summer Apple will drop support for 
OSX 10.5 and within a short time leave Mac G4 users without security 
updates - there's a lot of decent hardware out there that's not quite 
five years old yet.  Fedora 15 on ppc32 might just gain a number of new 
users at that point.

Thanks for all the work!

-Bill

-- 
Bill McGonigle, Owner
BFC Computing, LLC
http://bfccomputing.com/
Telephone: +1.603.448.4440
Email, IM, VOIP: bill at bfccomputing.com
VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf
Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle


From admin at arte-8.com  Thu Apr 28 16:39:22 2011
From: admin at arte-8.com (Nance jane)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:39:22 -0500 (COT)
Subject: [ q9c997192wzopg03] : manufacturers marketing email list
Message-ID: <20110428203922.7D6E817396B@mozart.arte-8.com>

All data we have is USA based unless otherwise indicated. Everything is 100% optin and can be downloaded in excel format instantly.

UNTIL FRIDAY ONLY - Take All lists below for $395. 



Business/Professionals Lists

Hotels    63,260 emails  
Architects - 9,790 emails
Construction Companies - 5,124 emails
Roofers - 4,187 emails
Home Builders - 6,574 emails
Churches - 169,377 emails
Schools - 439,797 emails
Criminal Attorneys    142,906 total records, 99,857 emails    
Real Estate Agents    1 million records with emails    
Police and Sheriff Services    42,987 records and 114 emails    
American Business Email List    14 million emails various businesses    
Manufacturers Database    1,057,119 records with 476,509 emails    
USA Lawyers Database    269,787 records with 235,244 emails    
Financial Planners Database    148,857 records all with emails    
Finance and Money Professionals Database    116,568 records all with emails    
Insurance Agents    113,926 records and 17,236 Emails    
Canadian Businesses    500,000 records all with emails    
United Kingdom Business Database    400,000 records all with emails  
Businesses in India - 1 Million emails  
Media Outlet Contacts    over 200k records all with emails and full contact data

Consumer Lists

Credit Inquiries Database    1 million Full Data Records all with emails    
American Homeowners    1 million Full Data Records all with emails    
American Consumer Database     2,400,000 records all with emails.

Healthcare Lists

Physicians (34 specialties)    788k records, 17k emails, 200k fax numbers    
Chiropractors    108,421 total records * 3,414 emails * 6,553 fax numbers    
Alternative Medicine    1,141,602 total records with 36,320 emails and 38.935 fax numbers    
Dentists     164k records, 45k emails, 77k fax numbers    
Dentists with Specialties    30k records all with emails    
Veterinarians    78,986 total records with 1,438  emails and 1,050  fax numbers    
Hospitals    23,747 Hospital Administrators in over 7,145 Hospitals (full contact info no emails)    
National Health Service Corp Clinics     1,300 total records with emails for government run free clinics    
Nursing Homes    31,589 Senior Administrators, 11,288 Nursing Directors in over 14,706 Nursing Homes (full contact info no emails)    
Pharmaceutical Companies    Email only list 47,000 emails of pharma company employees    
Physical Therapists    125,460 total records with 5,483 emails and 4,405 fax numbers    
Oncology Doctors    2,200 records all with emails    
US Surgery Centers    85k records and 14k emails    
Acupuncturists    23,988 records 1,826 emails    
Massage Therapists    76,701 records and 8,305 emails    
Medical Equipment Suppliers    167,425 total records with 6,940 emails and 5,812 fax numbers    
Mental Health Counselors    283,184 records 7,206 emails    
Visiting Nurses & RN's    91,386 total records with 2,788 emails and 2,390 fax numbers    
Optometrists    63,837 records 2,015 emails    
Psychologists    272,188 records and 9,874 emails


Reply to this address for some sample excel files: george.potter at gmx.de



  




Send us an email to rembox at gmx.de we will discontinue from the list
  






From karsten at redhat.com  Thu Apr 28 17:47:35 2011
From: karsten at redhat.com (Karsten Hopp)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:47:35 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>

Am 28.04.2011 20:24, schrieb David Woodhouse:
> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Additional items to cover are:
>>
>> 1) Are ppc32 machines supported?  Specifically I'm thinking of Apple
>> G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers
>> and such as well for machines in the 6xx class.
>
> We should definitely continue to support ppc32 machines. There are a
> *lot* of embedded ppc32 machines around.
>
>> 2) Which machine type are supported?  Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6
>> and 5.  I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support
>> given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not
>> really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes.  However, do
>> we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines?  (I think yes, but it's
>> unclear).
>


Well, as I have an Apple G5 and even created the mentioned DVD iso on it
I will be quite unhappy if I can't install the latest Fedora on it.
Looks good so far, even the big initrd isn't an issue on that machine as long
as I don't try a network install (tftp limitations)

.....

> What packages still *don't* build in the 64-bit versions, and would be
> missing (or bizarrely 32-bit-only) if we have 64-bit as the primary arch
> on ppc64?
 >
 > We were typically just not caring about the PPC64 ExcludeArch tracker
 > bug, although I have a distinct recollection of getting drunk in a
 > Shanghai hotel room at one point and doing OCaml support. Is that still
 > in the Fedora packages?
 >

Fortunately your ppc64 ocaml patch still works, although it got deleted on
the primary archs.
You don't happen to be in Germany anytime soon ? If getting you drunk results
in a 64bit yaboot I'm sure I'll find a nice pub somewhere around here ;-)

Creating 64bit images with an additional 32bit glibc just for yaboot is
suboptimal, but seems to work so far.
I stil need to convince mash to pull that in during the compose, though.
I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look at yaboot, but if that's too
much work we can keep it that way while waiting for grub2.


     Karsten



From timo.schoeler at riscworks.net  Thu Apr 28 16:54:17 2011
From: timo.schoeler at riscworks.net (Timo Schoeler)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:54:17 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>

On 04/28/2011 11:47 PM, Karsten Hopp wrote:
> Am 28.04.2011 20:24, schrieb David Woodhouse:
>> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Additional items to cover are:
>>>
>>> 1) Are ppc32 machines supported? Specifically I'm thinking of Apple
>>> G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers
>>> and such as well for machines in the 6xx class.
>>
>> We should definitely continue to support ppc32 machines. There are a
>> *lot* of embedded ppc32 machines around.
>>
>>> 2) Which machine type are supported? Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6
>>> and 5. I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support
>>> given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not
>>> really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes. However, do
>>> we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines? (I think yes, but it's
>>> unclear).
>>
>
>
> Well, as I have an Apple G5 and even created the mentioned DVD iso on it
> I will be quite unhappy if I can't install the latest Fedora on it.
> Looks good so far, even the big initrd isn't an issue on that machine as
> long
> as I don't try a network install (tftp limitations)
>
> .....
>
>> What packages still *don't* build in the 64-bit versions, and would be
>> missing (or bizarrely 32-bit-only) if we have 64-bit as the primary arch
>> on ppc64?
>  >
>  > We were typically just not caring about the PPC64 ExcludeArch tracker
>  > bug, although I have a distinct recollection of getting drunk in a
>  > Shanghai hotel room at one point and doing OCaml support. Is that still
>  > in the Fedora packages?
>  >
>
> Fortunately your ppc64 ocaml patch still works, although it got deleted on
> the primary archs.
> You don't happen to be in Germany anytime soon ? If getting you drunk
> results
> in a 64bit yaboot I'm sure I'll find a nice pub somewhere around here ;-)

Hey guys,

where in Germany are you (or anybody else on this list) located, 
approximately?

Timo

> Creating 64bit images with an additional 32bit glibc just for yaboot is
> suboptimal, but seems to work so far.
> I stil need to convince mash to pull that in during the compose, though.
> I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look at yaboot, but if that's too
> much work we can keep it that way while waiting for grub2.
>
>
> Karsten




From dwmw2 at infradead.org  Thu Apr 28 17:12:05 2011
From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:12:05 +0100
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1304025125.32168.3.camel@macbook.infradead.org>

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 23:47 +0200, Karsten Hopp wrote:
> Creating 64bit images with an additional 32bit glibc just for yaboot is
> suboptimal, but seems to work so far. 

Why does yaboot use glibc? Isn't it built with -nostdlib? The issue was
libextfs.a, wasn't it? And didn't we solve that somehow?

Would a 64-bit yaboot even *work* on most firmwares?

My roaming the world and drinking is somewhat curtailed these days, but
Berlin for GUADEC / Desktop Summit may be a possibility...

-- 
dwmw2



From wd at denx.de  Thu Apr 28 18:13:00 2011
From: wd at denx.de (Wolfgang Denk)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:13:00 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com> <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
Message-ID: <20110428221300.8FABFD52709@gemini.denx.de>

Dear Timo Schoeler,

In message <4DB9D3F9.6070109 at riscworks.net> you wrote:
>
> where in Germany are you (or anybody else on this list) located, 
> approximately?

Groebenzell, i. e. on the outskirts of Munich.
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=8718870717300191369

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Programmer's Lament: (Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act I, Scene vii)
        "That we but teach bloody instructions,
        which, being taught, return to plague the inventor..."


From larry.cafiero at gmail.com  Thu Apr 28 18:31:28 2011
From: larry.cafiero at gmail.com (Larry Cafiero)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:31:28 -0700
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com> <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin+JLkadB6=bRd8pfcau+Rx5HVmKA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Timo Schoeler
>
> where in Germany are you (or anybody else on this list) located,
> approximately?

Not in Germany: Felton, California, USA, in Santa Cruz County just
over a small mountain ridge from the Silicon Valley. I have a wide
array of PPC Macs in my lab running Fedora, Debian and openSUSE. Thank
you guys for keeping the PPC flame alive in Fedora.

I lurk here mostly since I am still learning programming, but someday
I'd like to be good enough at it to contribute.

Larry Cafiero


From karsten at redhat.com  Thu Apr 28 19:33:44 2011
From: karsten at redhat.com (Karsten Hopp)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:33:44 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>
	<4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
Message-ID: <4DB9F958.8070904@redhat.com>

>
> Hey guys,
>
> where in Germany are you (or anybody else on this list) located, approximately?
>
> Timo
>

Phil and I are both in Stuttgart, Adrian is only a few kilometers from us in Esslingen, 
Dan is in Brno.

    Karsten


From ingvar at redpill-linpro.com  Fri Apr 29 02:51:23 2011
From: ingvar at redpill-linpro.com (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:51:23 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>
	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>  <4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
Message-ID: <1304059883.6823.500.camel@yum.linpro.no>

* Timo Schoeler 
> Hey guys,
> 
> where in Germany are you (or anybody else on this list) located, 
> approximately?

I live in Oslo, Norway.

And talking about older hardware, when booted, my eMac (800MHz G4) is
happily running Fedora 12, waiting stubbornly for an update. I also
think I should be able to yum update my 7046-B50 (375MHz 604e) (it has
Fedora 9, I think) to newer fedoras as well, though they can't run the
installer anymore because of the initrd size.

I've also been talked into taking care of three 9124-720 (1.5GHz P5)
boxes, though I probably don't have storage for them all over time. I
did a test install of RHEL6 on one of them with no problems, but I'd
prefer Fedora.

Ingvar




From ppc-list at puzzled.xs4all.nl  Fri Apr 29 07:15:09 2011
From: ppc-list at puzzled.xs4all.nl (Patrick Lists)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:15:09 +0200
Subject: Fedora PPC status & work in progress :)
In-Reply-To: <1304059883.6823.500.camel@yum.linpro.no>
References: <4DB96859.3070700@redhat.com>	<BANLkTikHgyYPxFijS7vbAbTpZSwzWhxFpQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1304011681.2972.49.camel@eagle.danny.cz>	<BANLkTinY5h_yHKc_SJqpF8btw43MEmPAsA@mail.gmail.com>	<1304015067.4772.55.camel@macbook.infradead.org>	<4DB9E077.5000008@redhat.com>
	<4DB9D3F9.6070109@riscworks.net>
	<1304059883.6823.500.camel@yum.linpro.no>
Message-ID: <4DBA9DBD.7000700@puzzled.xs4all.nl>

On 04/29/2011 08:51 AM, Ingvar Hagelund wrote:
> I also
> think I should be able to yum update my 7046-B50 (375MHz 604e) (it has
> Fedora 9, I think) to newer fedoras as well, though they can't run the
> installer anymore because of the initrd size.

I have a 43P-150 box (375MHz 604e, 512MB mem) which has an old version 
of Fedora. Would be cool if it could run F15 or F16. I'll be happy to 
test boot images. Iirc last time took quite some effort and much 
appreciated help from David Woodhouse to get the box to boot.

Regards,
Patrick


