[WBEL-devel] x86_64 images (ready, but not uploaded)

[Pasi Pirhonen]

Hi,


On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:50:04PM -0800, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Pasi Pirhonen wrote:
> > recompiled the stuff once again. Today i've made ISO-images, but i have
> > only crappy 384kbit/s uplink, so i'd need some space (3.2GB to be more
> > exact).
> 
> I've got more than enough space, and an 8mbps link (well, anywhere between
> 0 and 6mbps depening on the time of day; I'm also a mirror for apache.org,
> gentoo (rsync and dist), gnu.org and CPAN).  I can give you an account to
> scp them to, or I could scp/rsync them directly from you, whatever works
> easier for you.  Then they could be put up on bittorrent. (Sidenote: it
> appears the bt tracker for whl is down.  If something has come up, I can
> volunteer for hosting the trackers.)


OK by be. I'd like to see John's 'blessing' tho first althought he has
clarified the interest to AMD64 in private mail.



> 
> Question 1: Does this release include the 32-bit compatibility overlay of
> glibc as well as the 32-bit only apps such as openoffice, pxe, etc?  If
> so, did you do it the red hat way (hereby referred to as "horible,
> horrible, clusterfuck"), or did you create 32-bit glibc compat packages
> that don't clobber the existing 64-bit ones?

I think it's the horrible, horrible one. I just rebuilt all the needed
part on i386box (installed the whitebox RC2 and rebuilt everything).
Grabbed all the packages that were included on public beta2 and
satified the dependencies of the later versions (ie. more i386-shit).

I have ran OpenOffice on my test-install, so it should be pretty much
OK. This ought to be _test-release_ :)

I don't think i included pxe tho ....

> 
> Question 2: Were you able to get the freeradius-0.9.3-1 errata compiled?
> Because when I try to build it, it does not seem to want to build the
> rlm_*.so files.  Interestingly enough, freeradius-0.9.0-2 compiles just
> fine.
> 

I haven't done any errdata. This is based very much on whitebox RC2.
I'll get on to it after the dust settles down from the initial
test-release.


> Question 3: Are you including all of the binary -devel packages that red
> hat "forgot" to include in the various incarnations of taroon?

Those are compiled and included outside of the RedHat/RPMS as those are
on i386-version if i remember correctly. I thought to just include
those, but as i said, i tried to follow the i386 on this.

> 
> Question 4: (well, not really a question)  Two things about the naming
> convention.  Red Hat refers to its arch and packages as x86_64, but the
> compilation itself is called amd64 (such as rhel-3-AMD64-as-disc1.iso, and
> also in bugzilla).  We should probably follow suit.

The naminbg isn't issue for me. I just wanted to make a note on the
names that those are not _i386_ images.

> 
> Also, since this release is an offshoot of the i386-rc1 (it looks like
> i386 will be the "leader" in the porting efforts, and all other arches are
> ports of the i386 port), the isos should probably respect that as well.
> I'm thinking filenames for non-i386 ports should be like so:
> 
> liberation-rc2-amd64-rc1-disc1.iso

If there will be some kind of active community, i dont' see any reasons
that other archs can't be 'the base for movement forward'. This one i
based on RC2 and tries to ne as RC2. 

> 
> 
> As for our little unofficial "race" here (assuming you and I are the only
> ones working on x86_64 at the moment), looks like you won. :)  I currently
> have a WBEL setup installed, and are about 75% done compiling WBEL on top
> of itself.  HOWEVER, it's 64-bit libs only, I haven't touched the 32-bit
> compatibility stuff yet, which is why I'm interested in if you have
> tackled that yet.  Anyways, as soon as I'm able to download your isos,
> I'll install them and begin playing with them.

I started ove week ago with this and have had Athlon64 for over a month
to play with, so .... :) I don't see it as a race. I would have built a
x86_64 distro anyway to get sthings sorted out for ME. This one is
better than making private distro as the 'community' gets something
in return when i fullfill my own needs :)

You'll see that you'll NEED some of those 32bit libs if you want to get
all the stuff compiled :P

> 
> A dual opteron setup would be nice right about now, but as it stands I'm
> perfectly happy with my new athlon64 3200+ :)
> 

I actually have both - The toy and the kick ass one :)

Nest stop. IA64 and after that i'll try to tackle that S/390 :)
You could expect IA64 ISO-images to be ready something like 24h later
(if not, then 48h).

 
-- 
Pasi Pirhonen - upi@iki.fi - http://iki.fi/upi/