Tim & Alethea Larson | 6 May 05:34 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: www/firefox on NetBSD/m68k ?

John,

Did you ever get to try to build the gtk1 version of firefox?  How did 
it go?  I still can't build gtk2.

Tim

PS  Throwing this out to other *68k groups as well for a (slightly) 
larger audience.

--

-- 
Tim & Alethea
christtrek.org

Greg Oster | 9 May 17:18 2006
Picon
Picon

Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1


Hi

After pushing a few of my m68k boxes[*] to build pkgsrc-2006Q1 for the 
past 40+ days, I'm happy to announce that I've finished uploading
1000+ packages to:

 ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc-2006Q1/NetBSD-3.0/m68k

There is about 900MB of binary package goodness for m68k boxen, 
including fun things like KDE 3.5.1, gnumeric, and ImageMagick :)  

And no, I havn't tested any of these... the only thing tested during 
this build was my patience for m68k boxes :) 

Enjoy!

Later...

Greg Oster

[*] For the record, the current uptimes on 3 of the 
 build boxes are:
Macintosh Quadra 700  (68040 <at> 25, 20MB RAM)
 9:08AM  up 28 days,  5:34, 2 users, load averages: 0.16, 0.11, 0.09
Macintosh Quadra 700  (68040 <at> 25, 20MB RAM)
 9:08AM  up 41 days, 15:38, 2 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.10, 0.08
HP 9000/425t (68040 <at> 25, 48MB RAM)
 9:09AM  up 41 days,  4:23, 2 users, load averages: 0.45, 0.16, 0.11
All are running NetBSD 3.0.
(Continue reading)

David Aiau | 10 May 08:53 2006
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

Hello Greg

On  9/05/2006, you wrote:

> Hi

> After pushing a few of my m68k boxes[*] to build pkgsrc-2006Q1 for the 
> past 40+ days, I'm happy to announce that I've finished uploading
> 1000+ packages to:

> ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc-2006Q1/NetBSD-3.0/m68k

> There is about 900MB of binary package goodness for m68k boxen, 
> including fun things like KDE 3.5.1, gnumeric, and ImageMagick :)  

> And no, I havn't tested any of these... the only thing tested during 
> this build was my patience for m68k boxes :) 

> Enjoy!

well I'm glad someone stills cares! :D

nice work

small obvious clearification... if I install the m68k version of 3.0 on
one of my Amigas and install any of these packages you have created they
will function correctly, yes? :)

Regards

(Continue reading)

Greg Oster | 10 May 15:48 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

David Aiau writes:
> Hello Greg
> 
> On  9/05/2006, you wrote:
> 
> > Hi
>  
> > After pushing a few of my m68k boxes[*] to build pkgsrc-2006Q1 for the 
> > past 40+ days, I'm happy to announce that I've finished uploading
> > 1000+ packages to:
>  
> > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc-2006Q1/NetBSD-3.0/m68k
>  
> > There is about 900MB of binary package goodness for m68k boxen, 
> > including fun things like KDE 3.5.1, gnumeric, and ImageMagick :)  
>  
> > And no, I havn't tested any of these... the only thing tested during 
> > this build was my patience for m68k boxes :) 
>  
> > Enjoy!
>  
> well I'm glad someone stills cares! :D
> 
> nice work
> 
> small obvious clearification... if I install the m68k version of 3.0 on
> one of my Amigas and install any of these packages you have created they
> will function correctly, yes? :)

You just install NetBSD-3.0/amiga and then you can use these packages.  
(Continue reading)

Tim & Alethea Larson | 11 May 12:10 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

Greg Oster wrote:
> After pushing a few of my m68k boxes[*] to build pkgsrc-2006Q1 for the 
> past 40+ days, I'm happy to announce that I've finished uploading
> 1000+ packages to:
> 
>  ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc-2006Q1/NetBSD-3.0/m68k
> 
> There is about 900MB of binary package goodness for m68k boxen, 
> including fun things like KDE 3.5.1, gnumeric, and ImageMagick :)  

What, no Mozilla?  :)  I've got to chuckle at the idea of using some of 
these on m68k...xscreensaver alone slows my box to a crawl.

> And no, I havn't tested any of these... the only thing tested during 
> this build was my patience for m68k boxes :) 

This is definitely appreciated!  We haven't seen binary packages in a 
long time.  Too bad that SCSI issue in 3.0 on mac68k will likely prevent 
anybody from using these.  (Any other m68k people seeing this?) 
Packages for 2.1 would be useful for this reason too.

Is there anything special required to build generic m68k packages as 
opposed to mac68k/amiga/next68k/etc packages?

Thanks,
Tim
--

-- 
Tim & Alethea
christtrek.org

(Continue reading)

Bjarne Bäckström | 11 May 12:59 2006
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

On Thu, 11 May 2006 05:10:18 -0500, Tim & Alethea Larson
<thelarsons3 <at> cox.net> wrote:

>Greg Oster wrote:
[...]
>> And no, I havn't tested any of these... the only thing tested during
>> this build was my patience for m68k boxes :)
>
>This is definitely appreciated!

   Me three!

> We haven't seen binary packages in a
>long time.  Too bad that SCSI issue in 3.0 on mac68k will likely prevent
>anybody from using these.  (Any other m68k people seeing this?)

   I did check out 3.0 briefly on a IIsi with 17MB of RAM. I didn't see any
problems with the SCSI, but had to start up the Mac with extensions off,
otherwise NetBSD would hang at booting. Other than that, I can't remember
that I saw any serious problems with 3.0.
--
Regards,
/Bjarne.

Greg Oster | 11 May 15:29 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

Tim & Alethea Larson writes:
> Greg Oster wrote:
> > After pushing a few of my m68k boxes[*] to build pkgsrc-2006Q1 for the 
> > past 40+ days, I'm happy to announce that I've finished uploading
> > 1000+ packages to:
> > 
> >  ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc-2006Q1/NetBSD-3.0/m68k
> > 
> > There is about 900MB of binary package goodness for m68k boxen, 
> > including fun things like KDE 3.5.1, gnumeric, and ImageMagick :)  
> 
> What, no Mozilla?  :)  I've got to chuckle at the idea of using some of 
> these on m68k...xscreensaver alone slows my box to a crawl.

"I tried"... but it said something about not being available for m68k 
boxes :-/

> > And no, I havn't tested any of these... the only thing tested during 
> > this build was my patience for m68k boxes :) 
> 
> This is definitely appreciated!  We haven't seen binary packages in a 
> long time.  Too bad that SCSI issue in 3.0 on mac68k will likely prevent 
> anybody from using these.  (Any other m68k people seeing this?) 

I certainly didn't see any SCSI issues on either of the Q700's or my 
SE/30.. and they got into some very heavy paging in those 40 days....
(65MB processes on a 20MB machine isn't much fun :-} )

> Packages for 2.1 would be useful for this reason too.
> 
(Continue reading)

Bruce O'Neel | 11 May 15:43 2006
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

Hi,

On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:29:31AM -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
> > Packages for 2.1 would be useful for this reason too.
> > 
> > Is there anything special required to build generic m68k packages as 
> > opposed to mac68k/amiga/next68k/etc packages?
> 
> Nope.
> 

There might be a misconception here.  Once you are running NetBSD on machine X
and you don't depend on hardware specific features of machine X, the same binary
(not kernel, binaries such as ls, mv, less, xemacs) will run on machine Y
assuming that they have the same CPU (basically).

This means that a binary built on the amiga will run fine on the 68k macs.
A binary built on a PPC prep machine will run fine on a PowerMac, etc.

If you tell the compiler that you are going to build for the 68040 for example 
then it only will work on the other systems with an 040, not with a 030.

cheers

bruce

--

-- 
edoneel <at> sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

(Continue reading)

thelarsons3 | 11 May 16:00 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Binary packages for NetBSD/m68k 3.0 w/ pkgsrc-2006Q1

Greg Oster <oster <at> cs.usask.ca> wrote: 
> Tim & Alethea Larson writes:
> > What, no Mozilla?  :)  I've got to chuckle at the idea of using some of 
> > these on m68k...xscreensaver alone slows my box to a crawl.
> 
> "I tried"... but it said something about not being available for m68k 
> boxes :-/

The contention on this (mac68k) list has been that the issue that once kept Mozilla/Firefox from running on
m68k has been resolved by Mozilla no longer using the problematic modules.  I traced back through the
makefiles (where it mentions m68k dumping core in the comments) and commented out the restriction so I
could try to build.  Unfortunately I got a linking error (IIRC) late in the process.  I've been trying to find
someone else that could confirm this.  This was discussed on port-mac68k in January, IIRC.  If we can
confirm this, the package maintainer could update the makefiles.  Personally I'd be most interested in
the firefox-gtk1 package, but if someone's successfully built the gtk2 packages, that would be fine too.

> I certainly didn't see any SCSI issues on either of the Q700's or my 
> SE/30.. and they got into some very heavy paging in those 40 days....
> (65MB processes on a 20MB machine isn't much fun :-} )

Hmmm, mac68k has had a number of reports of SCSI errors during heavy load.  This has kept me away from 3.0,
since 2.1 seems very stable for me.

I have a Q840AV with 112MB and two drives that I use to build.

> > Is there anything special required to build generic m68k packages as 
> > opposed to mac68k/amiga/next68k/etc packages?
> 
> Nope.

(Continue reading)

emiliano | 11 May 17:53 2006
Picon

Help please...

Hi there!

I just managed to install NetBSD 3.0 on my Amiga.

Now I need some little help: what are the differences with x86  
version to wich main guides refer?

I couldn't configure the keyboard for example, and managed to  
configure (basicly and badly) the X server thanks to ONE message  
found on the internet (and coming from this list).

Are there any documentations specific to Amiga?

This is my machine:

Amiga 4000 + Cyberstorm MKI 060 (112 megs) + Cybervision 3D +  
MultifaceCard 2 +  4 Gig. SCSI drive

I know linux enough but I am totally new to NetBSD. Exciting to note  
that it runs well even on such an old machine...!!

Regards.
Emiliano


Gmane