 Pdaxii13v2 With 2.6 Kernel!? |
OESF Forums > Distros, Development, and Model Specific Forums > Distro Support and Discussion > pdaXrom  |
 Feb 25 2008, 06:30 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 193 Joined: 21-November 05 Member No.: 8,574  |
Hello,
does anyone of you tried to get the kernel 2.6 working vor Meanie last pdaXii13 v2 version? This would be very interesting and I'm willing to give them a try. I'm not so familiar with kernel compilation but I would try it if I get some help of this forum!  Thanks climber SL-C3100 & pdaXii13 v2 (5.5) |
 |
 
|
|
Feb 25 2008, 10:27 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 2,350 Joined: 30-July 06 Member No.: 10,575 |
I don't think you'd like to try pdaX kernel building. It's a major pain.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 25 2008, 02:21 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 474 Joined: 22-March 06 From: Winnipeg, Canada Member No.: 9,420 |
QUOTE(climber @ Feb 25 2008, 08:30 AM)  Hello, does anyone of you tried to get the kernel 2.6 working vor Meanie last pdaXii13 v2 version? This would be very interesting and I'm willing to give them a try. I'm not so familiar with kernel compilation but I would try it if I get some help of this forum! Thanks climber SL-C3100 & pdaXii13 v2 (5.5) I can't really help you on this but, I'm curious as to why you would want to attempt this? The 2.6 kernel, from what I understand, has some fairly major design changes in it so most of the working Zaurus 2.4 customizations will not immediately work under a 2.4 kernel. That is why all the 2.6 kernel based ROM/distros are not Zaurus feature complete. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 25 2008, 02:42 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Admin Posts: 1,208 Joined: 20-January 06 From: York, Pennsylvania Member No.: 8,961 |
QUOTE(HoloVector @ Feb 25 2008, 05:21 PM) Hello, I can't really help you on this but, I'm curious as to why you would want to attempt this? The 2.6 kernel, from what I understand, has some fairly major design changes in it so most of the working Zaurus 2.4 customizations will not immediately work under a 2.4 kernel. That is why all the 2.6 kernel based ROM/distros are not Zaurus feature complete. What he said :-) there is to many changes to just run up a 2.6x kernel in an environment with the rootfs having 2.4x configs Late |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2008, 08:13 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 14-December 07 Member No.: 21,073 |
QUOTE(InSearchOf @ Feb 26 2008, 12:42 AM) QUOTE(HoloVector @ Feb 25 2008, 05:21 PM) Hello, I can't really help you on this but, I'm curious as to why you would want to attempt this? The 2.6 kernel, from what I understand, has some fairly major design changes in it so most of the working Zaurus 2.4 customizations will not immediately work under a 2.4 kernel. That is why all the 2.6 kernel based ROM/distros are not Zaurus feature complete. What he said :-) there is to many changes to just run up a 2.6x kernel in an environment with the rootfs having 2.4x configs Late With that being said, what is the next evolutionary step for pdaXrom? |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2008, 09:55 AM
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 132 Joined: 2-March 04 Member No.: 2,125 |
QUOTE(axeTail @ Feb 26 2008, 08:13 AM) With that being said, what is the next evolutionary step for pdaXrom? Next step is for you to join pdaXrom project, fix bugs and add missing features. Alternately, wait for someone else to do this. I'm a little afraid, that the most likely "next evolutionary step" is extinction... though at the current rate of progress/decay, we may not see it in our lifetimes. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2008, 09:50 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 409 Joined: 3-December 06 Member No.: 13,063 |
Sadly said - the next step is one of these:
1. You buy something else, not zaurus 2. You switch to something else, not pdaXrom 3. pdaXrom moves to something else like openembedded, not pdaXrom current way. Right now I don't find any of the solutions working for me, so I'm using my customized beta3 that works so far great (except for the speed ... agh speed) and I build only packages for it. When Debian or Angstrom is stable enough - I will move there ( If I don't have already some new gadget ) |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 12:47 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 14-December 07 Member No.: 21,073 |
pdaXrom / pdaXii13 is great. From the above comments, it's not worth the effort to update the kernel.
I guess the next step would be to move to Debian and try to contribute there. What if we take one of the iso's mentioned here and create a distro? http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r3/arm/iso-cd/ How much effort would that involve? |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 08:39 AM
Post
#9
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 2,821 Joined: 13-September 04 From: Wasilla Ak. Member No.: 4,572 |
QUOTE(axeTail @ Feb 26 2008, 11:47 PM) pdaXrom / pdaXii13 is great. From the above comments, it's not worth the effort to update the kernel. I guess the next step would be to move to Debian and try to contribute there. What if we take one of the iso's mentioned here and create a distro? http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r3/arm/iso-cd/ How much effort would that involve? I think because of the availability of epiphany-webkit in later releases a slightly more cutting edge debian based system would be the thing. I kind of look at it the other way, though--what would it take to make a pdaxii13 'workalike'out of the available debian stuff? How much hardware support is still lacking in the fastest/newest kernels? How hard would it be to do a debian 'roll your own' system that took advantage of the sharp bootloader and that installed a working debian system with the same (but newer) packages and scripts from pdaxxii13, or pdax current? Given a working debian system, how hard would it be to batch convert the distro, or the significant pieces to .ipk (and would it be worthwhile?) btw-- etch can run chroot in pdaxii13 using pocket workstation. Not the same, of course, but a decent compromise for now. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 03:16 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2,350 Joined: 30-July 06 Member No.: 10,575 |
Be warned, Debian is insanely slow on the Z.
Also, Debian is on 4.0r5 IIRC, no sense getting r3. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:22 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 14-December 07 Member No.: 21,073 |
QUOTE(Capn_Fish @ Feb 28 2008, 01:16 AM) Be warned, Debian is insanely slow on the Z. Also, Debian is on 4.0r5 IIRC, no sense getting r3. Is both eabi and abi slow on the Z? Why do we need a new kernel? Let's just stick with 2.4 and try to optimize pdaXrom. Where can I get the source code? I would like to get involved and contribute. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:32 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2,821 Joined: 13-September 04 From: Wasilla Ak. Member No.: 4,572 |
QUOTE(axeTail @ Feb 27 2008, 10:22 PM) QUOTE(Capn_Fish @ Feb 28 2008, 01:16 AM) Be warned, Debian is insanely slow on the Z. Also, Debian is on 4.0r5 IIRC, no sense getting r3. Is both eabi and abi slow on the Z? Why do we need a new kernel? Let's just stick with 2.4 and try to optimize pdaXrom. Where can I get the source code? I would like to get involved and contribute. Have a look at tyrannozaurus.com--the stuff should be there. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:49 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 14-December 07 Member No.: 21,073 |
QUOTE(adf @ Feb 28 2008, 09:32 AM) QUOTE(axeTail @ Feb 27 2008, 10:22 PM) QUOTE(Capn_Fish @ Feb 28 2008, 01:16 AM) Be warned, Debian is insanely slow on the Z. Also, Debian is on 4.0r5 IIRC, no sense getting r3. Is both eabi and abi slow on the Z? Why do we need a new kernel? Let's just stick with 2.4 and try to optimize pdaXrom. Where can I get the source code? I would like to get involved and contribute. Have a look at tyrannozaurus.com--the stuff should be there. Thanks for the reply. Why would we need kernel 2.6? Why not try to optimize what we currently have? |
|
|
|
|
Feb 28 2008, 04:41 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2,350 Joined: 30-July 06 Member No.: 10,575 |
I believe the theory is that EABI is faster than OABI (I may be wrong, though), and I tested EABI, which was ridiculously slow.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 28 2008, 07:06 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 409 Joined: 3-December 06 Member No.: 13,063 |
QUOTE(Capn_Fish @ Feb 28 2008, 02:41 PM) I believe the theory is that EABI is faster than OABI (I may be wrong, though), and I tested EABI, which was ridiculously slow. EABI is faster than OABI. In fact, debian EABI is a lot faster than my beta3. Unfortunately - too much things broken for me to move. I really hate to torture myself. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 04:07 AM |