Re: Status of corona?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:52:54AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 16:02 +0100, Christian Joensson wrote:
> 
> > I saw that the corona tree was updated a week ago... I'm thinking of
> > fedora and upgrading to the corona tree...
> > 
> > Is the status of corona such that I can upgrade
> > 
> > (a) some packages
> 
> I think the only answer that qualifies is A. Now the good news...
> 
> > I'd like to have glibc-2.3 and gcc-3.3 mainly...
> 
> You should be able to get these two package sets in.
> 
> > What packages do you suggest that I download and update?
> 
> Glibc*.sparc.rpm, nscd*.sparc.rpm, rpm-*.sparc.rpm, popt-*.rpm, and all
> dependencies that it complains about. Then, do gcc-*.sparc.rpm, cpp-*.
> sparc.rpm, libstdc*.sparc.rpm, libgcc*.sparc.rpm, libgcj-*.sparc.rpm,
> libf2c-*.sparc.rpm, libgnat-*.sparc.rpm, and any other dependencies that
> I'm forgetting.

right, did this on my sparc32 machine first:

[root@sparky root]# rpm -Uvh glibc-headers-2.3.3-10.sparc.rpm glibc-kernheaders-2.4-8.43sparc.sparc.rpm glibc-2.3.3-10.sparc.rpm glibc-devel-2.3.3-10.sparc.rpm glibc-common-2.3.3-10.sparc.rpm nscd-2.3.3-10.sparc.rpm rpm-4.3-0.10sparc.sparc.rpm rpm-devel-4.3-0.10sparc.sparc.rpm rpm-build-4.3-0.10sparc.sparc.rpm popt-1.9-0.10sparc.sparc.rpm libgcc-3.3.3-2.sparc.rpm binutils-2.14.90.0.8-8.sparc.rpm tzdata-2003d-1.noarch.rpm beecrypt-3.1.0-1.sparc.rpm elfutils-libelf-0.94-2.sparc.rpm libselinux-1.4-9.sparc.rpm

however, there is a complaint about not being able to run the %post
script, both for libgcc and glibc-common...

at this point... I can't do much...

[root@sparky corona-updates]# rpm -Uvh coreutils-5.0-39.sparc.rpm
bash: /bin/rpm: cannot execute binary file
[root@sparky corona-updates]#

and not even

[root@sparky corona-updates]# rpm --rebuilddb
bash: /bin/rpm: cannot execute binary file
[root@sparky corona-updates]#


> 
> Note that the kernel is missing. I still can't get a 2.6 kernel for
> sparc64 that will let me build the 2.6 kernel or glibc when its
> booted.   

hmm, no worries, i was about to say... but I really need the glibc for
64 bit... and a few more friends, zlib, gmp, gdb...

hey, do you really *need* a 64-bit 2.6 kernel to build 64 bit?
wouldn't a 2.4 64 bit kernel do at all?

Cheers,

/ChJ

_______________________________________________
Aurora-sparc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.auroralinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aurora-sparc-devel
Aurora FAQ: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mas01r/aurorafaq.html