Linux-Development-Sys Digest #624, Volume #7 Fri, 25 Feb 00 09:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: changing glibc (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: memory allocation . (Ralf Render)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Colin Watson)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does linux support DIRECT I/O? (Marc SCHAEFER)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Albert Ulmer)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Anders Larsen)
Re: Debugging application using pthread (Fabrice Peix)
bug: same dir content after changing disks (Ul f Dambacher)
Apache server mailing list (Subba Rao)
Re: Can a previous handler be saved when requesting an IRQ? (Fabrice Peix)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:42:12 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>Binary only software should ship with all the required shared libraries.
The key word here is SHOULD. Linux should include an ABI, but it does
not. Binaries should be shipped with all required libraries, but they
are not. :-(
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:04:44 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>And what on earth is an "ABI" ?
An ABI is an Application Binary Interface. It does define in terms of
bits, symbols, register usage,... the interface between a binary and
the operating system. The libraries (and their interface), that are
part of the OS are part of the ABI.
>You gave no idea what you are talking about. The KDE and GNOME projects
>are primarily about APIs. There is the QT/KDE API on Linux. This ships
>with all distributions, as does GTK/GNOME.
The ABI is for binaries, what the API is for source code. A standard
API does offer portability of source code, while a standard ABI does
offer portability of binaries.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Subject: Re: changing glibc
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:30:12 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl) writes:
>Try the update .. 4.4.1 would work mostly,, 4.4.2 does work without
>problems for me (glibc-2.1.2 && glibc-2.1.3pre4). For me it was
>actually the only real troublesome thing but I used 2.0.110 - 2.0.112
>too, so some things updated on the fly beforehand..
I have 4.4.1 :-)
My problem is libstdc++-2.8.1. It does not exist on my system, so I
got the libstdc++-2.8.1.1.tar.gz and tried to comple it. The
compilatioon failed, but after some modifications (that were not that
easy for a X expert not being a C++ expert) it succeded.
But applix refused to run with the just greated library.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:11:37 +0100
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
>> But in Linux, there is no ABI, and this is the problem.
>True, but it's an industry-wide problem, not inherent to Linux.
... but in almost every other UNIX variant, it is much better as in
linux. It does not help at all to se, how great Linux is compared to
Windows. The ABI is a key concept required for binary software
distribution, and this is missing in Linux. Windows at least tries to
offer it.
BTW, your observations of windows programs does not hit the target at
all. The ABI is not everything, a specific version of an OS does offer
to its applications, but only a well defined subset. No one can
guarantee, that an applications uses an interface that is not part of
the ABI. This seems to be common practis on Windows systems. Before
blaming Windows for it, you should be sure, the applications failing
are only requiering the ABI. Of a simple user, this almost is
impossible, and expert users often cannot do this either.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:55:19 +0100
Adam Ierymenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The biggest one that comes right off the top
>of my head is stdc++... it changes when the compiler version
>changes which is an incredible pain in the ass. C++ is
>without a doubt the worst offender.
Too ture! :-(
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:43:13 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:10:09 +0100, Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>But Linux is not UNIX, unfortunately. I'd love to have the UNIX
>>aproach, but the Linux aproach is braindead.
>
> They share code well enough. That's all that really matters
> in the end...
Sharing is not my point, but having an ABI.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:01:27 +0100
Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Mario Klebsch wrote:
>> They are doing it, because almose everyone askes them about, not
>> because Linux is superior. They would have a much easier job, if Linux
>> would be a complete OS, not just a kernel.
>But Linux *is* only a kernel.
I know, that is one of its core problems. :-(
>If your talking about an operating system,
>you should be calling it GNU/Linux, like i.e. Debian does.
Well, that probably would be Debian GNU/Linux, and there is RatHad,
SUSE, Caldera,... They all claim to be Linux, but in fact are
different OSes.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:54:03 +0100
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've never used Solaris, but I have had many library problems with
>AIX; even having to install updated packages from IBM to get Oracle to
>work. Oracle, at one time, even had different versions of their
>package for different OS levels of AIX *within* the 3x series.
There are various Jumbo-libc-patches for Solaris, too. And sometimes
individual programs require specific patches to work, because there
are bugs in the library.
But we are not talking about bugs, but on intentional differences. The
differences are intentional, because someone changed the name of the
library, so it obviously is its intention to not be binary compatible
with the old one.
And of course, databases can be very demanding on any system. They
often require features, that are hardly tested, because almost noone
uses them.
>I've had extensive problems with libraries under Windows NT; and many
>programs require a certain service pack or even that a certain version
>of IE be installed.
We are not talking about WinNT but about UNIX. Err, WinNT is UNIX, but
this does not matter here. :-(
>It is a problem, but it isn't indiginous to Linux.
But in Linux IMHO it is wore than in any other UNIX, I have seen.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ralf Render <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: memory allocation .
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:26:21 +0100
Try get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, 3).
nilesh patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> hi ,
> how do you allocate a 64 K contiguous real memory for PCI
> devices ?
>
> do reply fast ,
>
> thanks ,
> nilesh .
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:48:08 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:42:33 +0100, Mario Klebsch wrote:
>>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>So if Linux will not be an OS, there sould be at least a way to define
>>the ABI of the linux versions, and the build process of the individual
>>libraries should be modified to guarantee, that the specified
>>interface is implemented by the libarary.
>If you're trying to say that the distributors
>should standardise on core shared library versions, I agree.
>Unfortunately, it's near impossible to get them to agree on *anything*,
>and the result is that the attempt to standardise things, LSB, fell flat
>on its face.
Who is LSB?
I do not think, it is impossible to add standards to linux. Just add
them to the linux source code. The linux source currently only does
include the kernel and some kernel modules, buy who said, that this
has to be its only contents in the future.
It should not be that hard to add some core libs and extend the
Makefiles to build them in a standard way.
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 11:24:53 GMT
In article <sIpt4.18721$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 25 Feb 2000 03:10:34 GMT, Colin Watson wrote:
>>>Qt and KDE don't ship with all distributions, by the way. In particular,
>>>Debian won't include them because of licensing issues (the QPL has fatal
>>>incompatibilities with the GPL).
>>
>>They don't ? Hmmm ...
>
>Debian ship Qt2 but not KDE.
They do? [fx: greps] Oh, yes, you're right. Sorry about that.
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"It's the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give,
And the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 11:50:49 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:04:44 +0100, Mario Klebsch wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>>And what on earth is an "ABI" ?
>
>An ABI is an Application Binary Interface. It does define in terms of
>bits, symbols, register usage,... the interface between a binary and
>the operating system. The libraries (and their interface), that are
>part of the OS are part of the ABI.
OK, got it (-; sorry, walked into this thread late.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 11:52:48 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:48:08 +0100, Mario Klebsch wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>Who is LSB?
It was a standardisation effort. They were attempting to standardise on
versions of shared libraries, file/directory locations and packaging.
It feel apart after some petty in-fighting.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Marc SCHAEFER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does linux support DIRECT I/O?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 08:54:30 GMT
Hong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I am working on a video editing program on linux. Because of the high
: bitrate of the video file, the caching seems no use and may add some
: overhead.
You could:
use the raw device (the direct I/O) one
Of course this is less interesting that using the filesystem, that's
why I suggest you test it first through the fs. Maybe the performance
you will need will be enough.
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:18:25 +0000
Mario Klebsch wrote:
> >But Linux *is* only a kernel.
> I know, that is one of its core problems. :-(
I'm not so sure about that. Thanks to the fact that Linux is only a
kernel, it can be used in a multitude of ways, not only PC Operating
Systems, but mobile embedded devices as well. Try running AIX on your
PDA...
> >If your talking about an operating system,
> >you should be calling it GNU/Linux, like i.e. Debian does.
> Well, that probably would be Debian GNU/Linux, and there is RatHad,
> SUSE, Caldera,... They all claim to be Linux, but in fact are
> different OSes.
Nonsense, they all cater the diverse needs of various users. In my view
that's the main point about the whole open source movement: CHOICE! It
is good to be different!
------------------------------
From: Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:21:58 +0100
Mario Klebsch wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
>
> >> But in Linux, there is no ABI, and this is the problem.
>
> >True, but it's an industry-wide problem, not inherent to Linux.
>
> ... but in almost every other UNIX variant, it is much better as in
> linux. It does not help at all to se, how great Linux is compared to
> Windows. The ABI is a key concept required for binary software
> distribution, and this is missing in Linux. Windows at least tries to
> offer it.
Oh well, with Linux, distribution of the *source code* of applications
is certainly encouraged. :-)
IMHO, that is a Good Thing (tm)
> BTW, your observations of windows programs does not hit the target at
> all. The ABI is not everything, a specific version of an OS does offer
> to its applications, but only a well defined subset. No one can
> guarantee, that an applications uses an interface that is not part of
> the ABI. This seems to be common practis on Windows systems. Before
> blaming Windows for it, you should be sure, the applications failing
> are only requiering the ABI. Of a simple user, this almost is
> impossible, and expert users often cannot do this either.
If the Windows ABI is really such a "well defined subset", how come
that's not common knownledge (except, perhaps, within Microsoft, Inc.) ?
--
Anders Larsen
------------------------------
From: Fabrice Peix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Debugging application using pthread
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:52:01 +0100
Ralf Render wrote:
>
> Coult you tell me what version of gdb/glib I need and where to find it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Fabrice Peix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>...
> > process.(clone syscall).
All you need is here:
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/linuxthreads/
------------------------------
From: Ul f Dambacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: bug: same dir content after changing disks
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:54:16 +0100
Hi everybody
I found a strange problem with my floppy or my zip and the vfat
filesystem.
When I mount disk 1 I can write to it and read from it. Then I unmount
it and insert another medium - disk 2 - and mount it,
in some occasions (unfortunately I can not force this error)
I see the the dir contents of disk 1. If now I write to this disk, this
dir contents is written
and thereby the filesystem is corrupted.
The Kernel is a 2.2.13 with patches by suse linux, I only found this
with removable media (floppy, zip), it does not depend on the driver
(floppy, zip internal, zip parallel), I compiled vfat, msdos,fat as
modules and unloaded these after the error occures. After reloading the
modules the error is still appering.
>From this I conclude this is a problem related to the virtual
filesystem.
Is there anybody who can help or has the found same problem with another
kernel?
Thanks and bye
Ulf
=====
Dipl.-Ing Ulf Dambacher
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:59:58 -0500
From: Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apache server mailing list
Reply-To: Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here is a mailing list for the Apache server and it's modules.
To subscribe to the list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hopefully, this will provide another channel to discuss Apache related issues
and successes.
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
=> Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. <=
http://www.smcinnovations.com
------------------------------
From: Fabrice Peix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Can a previous handler be saved when requesting an IRQ?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:08:53 +0100
Luis Miguel Pinho wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm making some experiments with kernel interrupts (I'm
> using redhat 6.0, kernel 2.2.5-15 and redhat 5.2, kernl
> 2.0.36), but there is one thing that is puzzling me.
> If I free a currently used irq, is there a way to save which
> was the handler?
> I can't find a kernel function to do it. My only guess is by
> manipulating irqaction structures.
>
> Thanks
>
> Luis Miguel Pinho
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why you want to save irq handler, you can share irq with other driver.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
