On Friday 16 January 2009 07:11:09 Rob Landley wrote:
...
> P.S. I still hope autoconf dies off and the world wakes up and moves away
> from that.
Parts of it did already :-)
In KDE we switched to CMake, getting rid of automake, autoconf, libtool and
m4, and many of those developers now bring
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 20:51:16 Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > This happens in a lot of places, like embedded gentoo ports, where almost
> > all of the work is sent across distcc to a cross-compilation machine. In
> > systems that use package management, it is done on the host thro
Jamie Lokier writes:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> > The $(( ... )) construct is standard POSIX shell syntax, see
>> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_04
>> >
>> > Bash supports $[ ... ] as an alternate syntax for the same thing.
>> > Perhaps you wer
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > The $(( ... )) construct is standard POSIX shell syntax, see
> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_04
> >
> > Bash supports $[ ... ] as an alternate syntax for the same thing.
> > Perhaps you were thinking of that.
>
> I thi
Not sure I fully understand
You basically want two blobs -- the initramfs and the application?
You can expand the initramfs by copying to it...so you mount the application
and run a script to copy it to initramfs before running it.
marty
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-embed
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:43, Jacob Avraham wrote:
> I have a system with 128M RAM and a flash partitioned so that 10M is
> dedicated to initramfs image,
> 6M to application partition. And another 6M for JFFS2.
> As I have plenty of RAM, I'd like to have my application directory mounted on
> RAM
Hi,
I have a system with 128M RAM and a flash partitioned so that 10M is dedicated
to initramfs image,
6M to application partition. And another 6M for JFFS2.
As I have plenty of RAM, I'd like to have my application directory mounted on
RAM, from a pre-populated
filesystem that resides in the 6M
Rob Landley wrote:
> Implementing something by hand isn't _always_ a good alternative, sure. That
> would be the "thinking about the problem" part. In this instance, avoiding
> overflow is trivial. (If 1<<-1 didn't wrap around, it wouldn't even need the
> if statement.)
I don't think this af
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Alejandro Mery writes:
>
>> I think the $(( ... )) bash-ism can be replaced with a simple .c helper toy.
>
> The $(( ... )) construct is standard POSIX shell syntax, see
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_04
>
> Bash suppor
