No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

m33sb3w · 2004-03-03 16:49:31

I just read this:

29 Feb Newsletter wrote:

1. Q: I have an AMD K6(-2) or a Transmeta processor, can I install
ArchLinux on it?
A: No. ArchLinux requires an i686 processor, and neither of those
conform to that. You need at least a Pentium2 or AMD K7.

in the newsletter from this past Sunday.

I'm not quite sure why it's thought that Arch can't be run on a Transmeta Crusoe processor. I have a Fujitsu sub-notebook with a Crusoe (5600? 5800? One of those...) that I've been running Gentoo on for two years. I have

-march=i686

in my CFLAGS and everything works fine. Why is it the belief that Arch can't be run on a Crusoe machine?

In anycase I guess I'll know for sure pretty soon as I'm on my way to fetch my notebook and install Arch on it for the first time.

Added midnight, 4 March: I got distracted, but I'm in the middle of the install now--just compiling a kernel. Everything looks good and what I've used to far works fine. I don't see what the issue is with Transmeta processors. Of course, that's good news...opens up the distro to another group of users.

m33sb3w · 2004-03-04 20:06:22

Well, I have a full Arch install on my notebook with a Transmeta Crusoe processor. Good news for anyone else with the same, I would think. I'm also working on ironing out a few minor kinks with portage, but nothing serious. I was already able to emerge my kernel of choice during the install. So, everything's looking real good.

yak8998 · 2004-03-04 23:16:32

Well, I have a full Arch install on my notebook with a Transmeta Crusoe processor. Good news for anyone else with the same, I would think. I'm also working on ironing out a few minor kinks with portage, but nothing serious. I was already able to emerge my kernel of choice during the install. So, everything's looking real good.

Bwa? Arch, portage, emerge?

sarah31 · 2004-03-04 23:42:31

gee i wonder what distro he is used to

m33sb3w · 2004-03-05 00:54:11

Yeah, well, once I get comfortable with writing the pkgbuilds I can do that, but for right now I'd rather have available all the packages I'm used to. Especially a couple of the kernels available in the portage tree. Maybe I'll just start installing the package managers from every distro I can find.

Xentac · 2004-03-05 01:18:54

This guy actually installed portage on his arch system so that he could continue using the ebuilds he's so used to.

sarah31 · 2004-03-05 03:25:38

oh yay now arch will get blamed for gentoo's cruddy operation.

some people are just weird.

terrapin · 2004-03-05 03:46:22

I wonder if I put a different manufacturer's engine in my nissan could I complain to nissan that my car has become unreliable?

sarah31 · 2004-03-05 04:03:52

possibly ..... not!

m33sb3w · 2004-03-05 04:13:31

Xentac wrote:

This guy actually installed portage on his arch system so that he could continue using the ebuilds he's so used to.

Geez...like I said, just a few ebuilds like some kernels, just until I am comfortable with writing pkgbuilds and...why not?

m33sb3w · 2004-03-05 04:21:01

sarah31 wrote:

oh yay now arch will get blamed for gentoo's cruddy operation.

Okay, number one, I've never had cruddy operation with Gentoo. Number two, I'm not a moron. If portage negatively affects Arch I think it would be quite obvious and I would simply either get rid of portage on the Arch system or, if I decided I preferred to keep the portage system, just reinstall Gentoo. I'm not going to go blaming anything on any distro.

sarah31 wrote:

some people are just weird.

Now I've read some of your other rants on how you claim Gentoo users treat non-Gentooers on their forums. Should I go back to the Gentoo forums and start posting how some people treat me with derision on these forums? If you want to attract people to your distro you shouldn't post things like this.

sarah31 · 2004-03-05 05:02:54

m33sb3w wrote:

Now I've read some of your other rants on how you claim Gentoo users treat non-Gentooers on their forums.

actually i only said i got very little service (if i even asked any questions on that forum) and on irc. it was on non-Gentoo forums that i have my issues with gentooers.

Should I go back to the Gentoo forums and start posting how some people treat me with derision on these forums?

honestly? i don't care i'm not here to make friends.

If you want to attract people to your distro you shouldn't post things like this.

i don't use arch.

as for using gentoo until you learn the arch's build system .... i had very little experince building anything from source, i am not schooled in any coding language and get bored to tears when people get too technical with their computer discussions and i still learned the build system very quickly. essentially it is not much different than compiling something on your own. just look at the PKGBUILDs in abs and you will learn very quickly.

for the time you have spent porting portage you could have learned the build system. i am not joking either. okay maybe not everything but enough to rebuild your kernel using abs and compile whatever missing packages you need.

i didn't say you were a a moron just weird. i never understand why people moving to another distro try to get it to work like their old distro. i understand the freedom to try distros out but if you are just going to turn your new distro into your old it really makes no sense. it also often acts as a deterent to actually dive in and learn the new distro.

andy · 2004-03-05 10:07:44

For some strange reason (which I don't even understnad myself ;-) ) I think it is cool to use parts of portage in Arch.

m33sb3w wrote:

I'm not a moron.

Obviously not. If you manage to install enough of portage to make it run on Arch you know enough about the system that you obviously know what you are doing.

Actually, if you only restrict yourself to kernels from portage then this won't even be a problem. Arch is designed to have any kernel. No package really depends on the kernel. E.g. you always can install a kernel unpacked from kernel.org and do the usual installation procedure. Just recently Judd wrote something along those lines on the mailing list : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 00877.html

However, for everything else I would recommend switching to ABS. Mixing two packaging systems just doesn't sound right ...

Arch Linux

#1 2004-03-03 16:49:31

No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#2 2004-03-04 20:06:22

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#3 2004-03-04 23:16:32

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#4 2004-03-04 23:42:31

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#5 2004-03-05 00:54:11

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#6 2004-03-05 01:18:54

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#7 2004-03-05 03:25:38

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#8 2004-03-05 03:46:22

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#9 2004-03-05 04:03:52

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#10 2004-03-05 04:13:31

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#11 2004-03-05 04:21:01

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#12 2004-03-05 05:02:54

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

#13 2004-03-05 10:07:44

Re: No Arch on a Crusoe processor?...Why?

Board footer