Debian Bug report logs - #111311
[Architectures] Please add "s390x"

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefan Gybas <stefan@gybas.com>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Request for new architecture: s390x

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:40:17 +0200

Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: n/a, reported 2001-09-05
Severity: wishlist

I'm one of the porters for the s390 architecture and we would also like
to build our packages for the new s390x architecture. s390 is used on
IBM mainframes up to G6 (generation 6) and is based on 31bit addresses
(yes, 31 bits, not 32!). The newer models (G7) use 64bit addresses and
the architecture is called s390x. Kernels for s390x also include an 31bit
emulation layer, so we can run s390 binaries on s390x.

The most recent 2.4 kernels with patches from IBM run fine on s390x, so we
would like to create a kernel-image for s390x first and then build more and
more packages for s390 and s390x. The installer will be the same for both
s390 and s390x.

Thanks in advance for your help!

-- 
Stefan Gybas

Message #10 received at 111311@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>

To: 111311@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Stefan Gybas <stefan@gybas.com>

Subject: Re: Request for new architecture: s390x

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:31:46 -0800

What's the status of this request?  People ask about Debian for
s390x/zSeries on a regular basis, both privately and in public forums, and
it seems like we could support it with relatively little additional porting
effort.  Are we in need of additional disks?

-- 
 - mdz

Message #15 received at 111311@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, 111311@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Stefan Gybas <stefan@gybas.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#111311: Request for new architecture: s390x

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:06:16 +0000

* Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> [2004-01-14 12:31]:
> What's the status of this request?  People ask about Debian for
> s390x/zSeries on a regular basis, both privately and in public
> forums, and it seems like we could support it with relatively little
> additional porting effort.  Are we in need of additional disks?

I think it's waiting for the mirror system to be split in a way so
that not all mirrors carry every architecture.  The idea is to have
i386 and perhaps powerpc (or whatever - a limited number of arches)
mirrored on all sites, and have the rest only available on few
selected sites.  This has to happen before sarge releases (because
there's no way mirrors can carry sarge for all architectures plus the
next testing and unstable, and perhaos oldstable for a bit a well), so
I'd _assume_ that more architectures are added shortly after sarge is
out.

BTW, I know s390(x) is quite popular, but it has a severe lack of
manpower.  debian-installer is not really ready, for example, on s390.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com

Message #20 received at 111311@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>

To: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Cc: 111311@bugs.debian.org, Stefan Gybas <stefan@gybas.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#111311: Request for new architecture: s390x

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:23:22 -0800

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:06:16PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

> * Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> [2004-01-14 12:31]:
> > What's the status of this request?  People ask about Debian for
> > s390x/zSeries on a regular basis, both privately and in public
> > forums, and it seems like we could support it with relatively little
> > additional porting effort.  Are we in need of additional disks?
> 
> I think it's waiting for the mirror system to be split in a way so
> that not all mirrors carry every architecture.  The idea is to have
> i386 and perhaps powerpc (or whatever - a limited number of arches)
> mirrored on all sites, and have the rest only available on few
> selected sites.  This has to happen before sarge releases (because
> there's no way mirrors can carry sarge for all architectures plus the
> next testing and unstable, and perhaos oldstable for a bit a well), so
> I'd _assume_ that more architectures are added shortly after sarge is
> out.

Thanks for the update.

> BTW, I know s390(x) is quite popular, but it has a severe lack of
> manpower.  debian-installer is not really ready, for example, on s390.

I think that several of our architectures fall into that category when it
comes to debian-installer. :-/

-- 
 - mdz

Message #25 received at 111311@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefan Gybas <sgybas@debian.org>

To: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Cc: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, 111311@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#111311: Request for new architecture: s390x

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:40:18 +0100

Martin Michlmayr wrote:

> BTW, I know s390(x) is quite popular, but it has a severe lack of
> manpower.  debian-installer is not really ready, for example, on s390.

I don't have VM-level access to an S/390 since I'm not working for IBM 
any longer. This means that I'm not able to help d-i since Hercules is 
IMHO too slow for development. Sorry!

Stefan

Message #30 received at 111311@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, 111311@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Stefan Gybas <stefan@gybas.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#111311: Request for new architecture: s390x

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:01:14 +0000

* Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> [2004-01-14 13:23]:
> > BTW, I know s390(x) is quite popular, but it has a severe lack of
> > manpower.  debian-installer is not really ready, for example, on s390.
> 
> I think that several of our architectures fall into that category when it
> comes to debian-installer. :-/

The situation is actually not that bad.  The two biggests problems
from my POV are currently m68k and s390.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com

Message #37 received at 111311-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@ganneff.de>

To: 111311-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: close it

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:45:51 +0200

Hi

last action in this bug is from 2004, and AFAIK there is currently no
working port maintained somewhere.

If this architecture will fullfill Debians basic guidelines new
architectures need to follow feel free to file a new bug asking for
inclusion.

-- 
bye, Joerg
Some NM:
"Essential: Yes" -- useful for a message when you do apt-get remove bash:

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.