[Context] Linux PPC

Piotr Kopszak kopszak at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 15:28:01 CET 2009

As far as I understand it, there is nothing (except the time taken)
that can stop a user having 64-bit hardware at their disposal to
recompile the kernel and packages the way it suits him or her, so I
guess it is possible that purely 64-bit Linux happens at some moment
and it MAY  be incompatible with 32-bit powerpc (see what was
happening with i386 and amd64 debian) in fact it WILL be incompatible
unless it contains compatibility libraries which it does not have to.
Not that we have to worry about it now. But yes, at some point someone
may complain.


2009/12/12 Mojca Miklavec <mojca.miklavec.lists at gmail.com>:
>> OK, running do_all.sh gives
>> Error: your system "Linux " is not supported yet,
>> but we're glad that you would like to provide the binaries for it.
>> Please ask for instructions on the ConTeXt mailing-list (ntg-context at ntg.nl)
>> That's why I thought this was exclusively targeted at OS X. And I see
> Oh, I guess that it's "Linux <empty_string_for_architecture>". Maybe
> we need to fix that message ...
>> PLATFORMS="$platform"
>> if [ $system = 'Darwin' ]; then
>>        PLATFORMS="osx-intel osx-64 osx-ppc osx-universal"
>> fi
> No, this only means that if one is working on OS X, it will build
> binaries for three architectures + universal ones, so the same script
> runs 4 times in a loop to build them all. $platform string is still
> not empty.
>> so I assumed that all the other platforms would be unknown. Or am I missing a newer version of the script?
> No, you are not, but I never realized that the script doesn't work on
> your computer.
>> uname -m: ppc64
>> uname -s: Linux
> OK, so Mac is not the only faulty player here :)
> OS X tends to say
> uname -m: i386
> while being purely 64-bit system (exactly the contrary). Just curious:
> does "echo $HOSTTYPE" return anything useful on your system (please
> try both your shell and bash)?
>> The minimals work fine, but I don't use setuptex (I use zsh and have my own script that is adapted to my system). If you want, I can try and see if/how I can make it work on linux-ppc.
> I didn't know that either. That's pretty important piece of
> information. We can fix that.
>> As to compatibility between linux-ppc and linux-ppc64: ppc64 is kind of a misnomer. As far as I have understood, only the kernel is 64-bit; the userland is 32-bit. AFAICS, no linux distribution (with the exception of gentoo) has a real 64-bit implementation. So: my system will build 32-bit binaries which should be compatible with all  linux-ppc systems.
> The only question remains: what happens if some gentoo user starts
> using (or compiling) the binaries?
> I would not like to make too many problems around it, I would just
> like to understand, so that we might have a chance to fix it properly
> (if such a chance exists), else we'll just assume that ppc and ppc64
> are equal until someone starts complaining.
> Mojca
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~context
> Post to     : context at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~context
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


More information about the binary-builders mailing list