Re: State of Things [was: Re: Gnome-Python]
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:21:14 -0500
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc'd to LFS-Dev as this is supposed to be a nice attaboy to the
LFS devs]
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/11/07 19:45 CST:
It's the least I could do after you powered through so many
commits over the past couple weeks.
Once upon a time, I read a message from Alexander and he said that
(B)LFS was maybe the best 'distro' out there. Not sure when or why,
but I remember him saying that at one time.
At this point in time, I think that the (B)LFS instructions from
the current Development books are as good a combination as there
has ever been. Too bad half the folks that would want to use it
won't because they feel that their 64 bit machines need CLFS
massaging.
I'm really pleased right now with where the books can take you on
X86 platforms. We are really quite modern right now. Other than
the X86 platform is rapidly becoming semi-obsolete.
(this wasn't meant to be a dig on the X86 platform, references are
only because so many probably now use 64 bit machines and don't
think that [B]LFS is for them)
and you should not forget that CLFS could not nor would not
have existed without {B}LFS. The BLFS part is equally as important as
the LFS part to CLFS viability.
It is also true to say that you, personally, have driven this through,
even in the days when you were not the project leader. Your pride in
the 'product' is well founded. (and we have to thank Dan too, who has
been a more recent 'tower of strength')
I don't use 64-bit stuff yet, despite having the hardware. There just
isn't much point to all the extra effort. All my scripts are derived
from BLFS - and I track svn closely to spot stuff I couldn't
possibly spot on my own.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On 8/12/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any last minute updates I need to make before sending the -rc2
release announcement?
I just found something I'd like changed in the bootscripts. A while
back, I started removing 2/dev/null redirection since it hides
messages for errors.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/changeset/8167
I just hit one I missed in checkfs. We currently have
fsck ${options} -a -A -C -T 2/dev/null
Which conveniently hid the info the I had a LABEL wrong in fstab.
Instead I was dumped directly into There's an unrecoverable error,
we're halting and was really worried my disk was failing. Once I
commented out 2/dev/null, it was clear what the problem was.
Does anyone have any objections if I remove the 2/dev/null above and
regenerate the bootscripts?
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Gnome-Python
- Original Message - From: Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BLFS Development List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:15 PM Subject: Re: Gnome-Python Luca wrote: no-reply received Strange. I sent my ideas on improving the proposed XML syntax. Could you please check your spam folder? Due to XML tags, my message could well end up there. -- Alexander E. Patrakov I checked and Spam folder is empty; checked also filters and all is ok. Could try replying to my email address using to post to lfs and blfs lists? Luca -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 8/12/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any last minute updates I need to make before sending the -rc2
release announcement?
I just found something I'd like changed in the bootscripts. A while
back, I started removing 2/dev/null redirection since it hides
messages for errors.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/changeset/8167
I just hit one I missed in checkfs. We currently have
fsck ${options} -a -A -C -T 2/dev/null
Which conveniently hid the info the I had a LABEL wrong in fstab.
Instead I was dumped directly into There's an unrecoverable error,
we're halting and was really worried my disk was failing. Once I
commented out 2/dev/null, it was clear what the problem was.
Does anyone have any objections if I remove the 2/dev/null above and
regenerate the bootscripts?
Please do.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On Sunday 12 August 2007 23:57, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Are there any last minute updates I need to make before sending the -rc2 release announcement? The changelog mentions the linux upgrade as 2.6.22.1 not 2.6.22.2. Also, the shadow package links have never worked for me (two or three weeks of random checks); Is it possible to replace the link? I'm not sure what the protocol is on linking to another project's site, but I can provide a working link if requested. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Gnome-Python
El Lunes, 13 de Agosto de 2007 00:34, Randy McMurchy escribió: Would you recommend that we split this up a bit? Don't should be needed. What is needed is to create a sub-routine to parse Dbus-Bindings and Python-Modules on a different way, like was done for Xorg7. I will try to have it done before BLFS-6.3 release. Perl-Modules is not an issue due that almost all its dependencies are also Perl modules. Im wide open to suggestions or ideas that can help. Though (as I've heard Manuel mention before) I'm not certain we'll ever be able to fully automate BLFS due to the myriad of possibilities each package may have, if there are things that can help, please let us know. Yes, full automatization is impossible, not only due peculiarities on some BLFS pages, but also due that in a lot of packages the build commands need be adjusted based on what dependencies are installed and/or should be used. Plus, we should try to keep the XML structure the most simple possible to not do more hard the editor's work, IMHO. The current XML structure was not designed thinking on automate builds. That requires rigid XML trees with several hocks to can diferentiate each commad type (pre-configuration, patches, seds, configure, binaries build, documentation build, testsuites, binaries install, documentation install, post-configuration, etc...) and a more fine-grained optional dependencies (to add extra features, to allow testsuites run, to build documentation, etc...). A lot of changes and more work for the editors, but at the end the users will need yet to read carefully the book, to decide what internal and external dependencies he want, to review the scripts, and to decide what need be changed to build the package as he want. No, thanks. I someone want a full-automated from sources build, he can use Gentoo and like. Nevertheless, small not-intrusive changes like the ones propossed by Dan for LFS can be evaluated, if all you think that could be beneficial for both the editors, the book users, and jhalfs users. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On 8/13/07, Trent Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 12 August 2007 23:57, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Are there any last minute updates I need to make before sending the -rc2 release announcement? The changelog mentions the linux upgrade as 2.6.22.1 not 2.6.22.2. Good catch. I think that was just a c-n-p error. Fixing. Also, the shadow package links have never worked for me (two or three weeks of random checks); Is it possible to replace the link? I'm not sure what the protocol is on linking to another project's site, but I can provide a working link if requested. Yeah, that site is gone. In BLFS we're using this: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 There are plenty of places we can put it on one of the LFS servers. downloads.linuxfromscratch.org seems like as good a place as any. Let's see what the other editors say. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 12:32 CST: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 I put that there, and I now think it should be changed. If CLFS updates their version of Shadow, that link is likely to go away. I'll wait for Dan to fix LFS, and I'll just put whatever he uses in the BLFS book. CC'd BLFS-dev as a reminder to do it. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 12:41:00 up 11 days, 12:32, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.05, 0.05 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On 8/13/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 12:32 CST: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 I put that there, and I now think it should be changed. If CLFS updates their version of Shadow, that link is likely to go away. I'll wait for Dan to fix LFS, and I'll just put whatever he uses in the BLFS book. CC'd BLFS-dev as a reminder to do it. Well, I was putting out feelers as much as anything. I don't know what the right place to host it is. In BLFS, we often use the little file repo on anduin, but we don't have a similar setup for LFS. I think downloads would probably be a good place, though, since shadow is shared across both books. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
El Lunes, 13 de Agosto de 2007 19:32, Dan Nicholson escribió: Yeah, that site is gone. In BLFS we're using this: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 There are plenty of places we can put it on one of the LFS servers. downloads.linuxfromscratch.org seems like as good a place as any. Let's see what the other editors say. Why not to use one of the FTP mirrors URL's? For example the one used by jhalfs: ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Randy McMurchy wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 12:32 CST: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 I put that there, and I now think it should be changed. If CLFS updates their version of Shadow, that link is likely to go away. I'll wait for Dan to fix LFS, and I'll just put whatever he uses in the BLFS book. CC'd BLFS-dev as a reminder to do it. ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On 8/13/07, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: El Lunes, 13 de Agosto de 2007 19:32, Dan Nicholson escribió: Yeah, that site is gone. In BLFS we're using this: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 There are plenty of places we can put it on one of the LFS servers. downloads.linuxfromscratch.org seems like as good a place as any. Let's see what the other editors say. Why not to use one of the FTP mirrors URL's? For example the one used by jhalfs: ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 Right, but where is that mirroring from? The canonical download address comes from the LFS book and is picked up in the anduin sources repo. You can't mirror yourself. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 13:02 CST: Right, but where is that mirroring from? The canonical download address comes from the LFS book and is picked up in the anduin sources repo. You can't mirror yourself. Here's a link, but I'm not sure how long it would be valid for. http://fresh.t-systems-sfr.com/linux/src/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.gz/ Additionally, as you said, we can always find a home on Anduin. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 14:03:00 up 11 days, 13:54, 1 user, load average: 0.26, 0.07, 0.02 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Randy McMurchy wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 13:02 CST: Right, but where is that mirroring from? The canonical download address comes from the LFS book and is picked up in the anduin sources repo. You can't mirror yourself. Here's a link, but I'm not sure how long it would be valid for. http://fresh.t-systems-sfr.com/linux/src/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.gz/ Additionally, as you said, we can always find a home on Anduin. If we can't find the developer's canonical location, I'd really prefer anduin where we have complete control. For shadow, it is already there. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Bruce Dubbs wrote: If we can't find the developer's canonical location, I'd really prefer anduin where we have complete control. For shadow, it is already there. Sounds good, the lfs package repo won't be having that file be removed for years, I still even have 6.0 packages in the rsync repo, so any stable mirror of lfs such as anduin should be fine. lfs-matrix.net is my mirror and has been around for a while (not sure how long, haven't kept track) and I have no plans of stopping mirroring. Justin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On 8/13/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 12:32 CST: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 I put that there, and I now think it should be changed. If CLFS updates their version of Shadow, that link is likely to go away. I'll wait for Dan to fix LFS, and I'll just put whatever he uses in the BLFS book. CC'd BLFS-dev as a reminder to do it. ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 So, I should change it to point here? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.3-rc2
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: How do you propose to do this? I cannot recruit even testers. See - there was only one relevant reply to my request to test the CD on Intel hardware. The project is dead. It's not dead. It's slow, but it isn't dead. I think you set your standards for the project too high. There's only two of us and you expect the level of support and maintenance that could only really be achieved by a full-fledged distro with far more developers. As for the efforts you make in recruiting testers, perhaps you need to try alternative methods of recruit. (e.g., perhaps help keep the website up to date and post requests for help there). More regular news items, not just release announcements, but ideas, new concepts and new features could be added in a semi-blog form, perhaps even RSS feeds. Lastly, frankly, I think you scare people away, at least to a certain degree. You strive for perfection, which is noble, but in actuality, unrealistic. And you set such high standards and strict rules about who can request support, that I think it ends up keeping them from saying anything. If we relaxed a bit more, and opened up more opportunities for others to contribute, I'm sure we'd see much more feedback and support from the community. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
Dan Nicholson wrote: On 8/13/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/13/07 12:32 CST: http://cross-lfs.org/files/packages/svn/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 I put that there, and I now think it should be changed. If CLFS updates their version of Shadow, that link is likely to go away. I'll wait for Dan to fix LFS, and I'll just put whatever he uses in the BLFS book. CC'd BLFS-dev as a reminder to do it. ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/conglomeration/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 So, I should change it to point here? Yes, with a minor path change. Lets use: ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/lfs-packages/version;/shadow-shadow-version;.tar.bz2 http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/lfs-packages/version;/shadow-shadow-version;.tar.bz2 These will be symlinks to conglomeration and all the packages are there. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.3-rc2
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/13/07 18:33 CST: It's not dead. It's slow, but it isn't dead. I think you set your standards for the project too high. There's only two of us and you expect the level of support and maintenance that could only really be achieved by a full-fledged distro with far more developers. I sensed the same exact thing when Alex mentioned his thoughts. I'm thinking, Man, that livecd has always been there for me, and it always works. What more could folks want? (above is my way of saying the product is very good) As for the efforts you make in recruiting testers, perhaps you need to try alternative methods of recruit. (e.g., perhaps help keep the website up to date and post requests for help there). More regular news items, not just release announcements, but ideas, new concepts and new features could be added in a semi-blog form, perhaps even RSS feeds. This is some of the most refreshing words I've heard in a long time, and would do wonders for the project. Jeremy, thank you for saying it. I feel guilty because I don't update the BLFS web site more often. (haven't even announced Ag's acceptance of an Editor's role, now that I think about it). Think Google. Stuff gets indexed so fast now, that we could probably create a lot more traffic with frequent updates to the web site. Let's all strive to keep the various project's web pages updated with some new stuff. It's hard (as there just isn't anything really new any more), but doable. I'll try. Anyone else? Lastly, frankly, I think you scare people away, at least to a certain degree. You strive for perfection, which is noble, but in actuality, unrealistic. And you set such high standards and strict rules about who can request support, that I think it ends up keeping them from saying anything. I've thought this as well (and very well phrased, Jeremy). But only to a small degree. But this is coming from a guy that isn't really the best PR figure either. If we relaxed a bit more, and opened up more opportunities for others to contribute, I'm sure we'd see much more feedback and support from the community. There is merit to those words. I will remember this post from Jeremy, and going forward from here, attempt to apply much of what was said. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:24:00 up 11 days, 19:15, 1 user, load average: 0.60, 0.93, 0.83 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.3-rc2
Randy McMurchy wrote: Think Google. Stuff gets indexed so fast now, that we could probably create a lot more traffic with frequent updates to the web site. Let's all strive to keep the various project's web pages updated with some new stuff. It's hard (as there just isn't anything really new any more), but doable. LOL. I just did a google on linuxfromscratch and got 391,000 hits. The 6.3-rc1 announcement is on the first page. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.3-rc2
Randy McMurchy wrote: This is some of the most refreshing words I've heard in a long time, and would do wonders for the project. Jeremy, thank you for saying it. I feel guilty because I don't update the BLFS web site more often. (haven't even announced Ag's acceptance of an Editor's role, now that I think about it). Think Google. Stuff gets indexed so fast now, that we could probably create a lot more traffic with frequent updates to the web site. Let's all strive to keep the various project's web pages updated with some new stuff. It's hard (as there just isn't anything really new any more), but doable. I'll try. Anyone else? Thank you, Randy. Yes, I think it would be nice to see all the LFS projects do more with regards to the website. I wonder if perhaps we could get a more blog-like interface to the news items sections, some sort of framework that would drop in place to the current site. I'll have to look around, but of course if anyone else already has an idea about what would work, let's hear it. :) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.3-rc2
On 8/13/07, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you, Randy. Yes, I think it would be nice to see all the LFS projects do more with regards to the website. I wonder if perhaps we could get a more blog-like interface to the news items sections, some sort of framework that would drop in place to the current site. I'll have to look around, but of course if anyone else already has an idea about what would work, let's hear it. :) Cairographics just started using ikiwiki, which has backends for svn/git/etc. It allows the developers to make commits via git, but changes by ordinary users from the wiki interface are committed to git, too. I don't know much about it, but it seems really cool. http://cairographics.org/ http://ikiwiki.info/ http://cairographics.org/news/2007/07/03/cairo-wiki/ -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
64 bit processors
Guys, How can I tell if I have a 64 bit processor? dmesg gives: CPU0: Intel P4/Xeon Extended MCE MSRs (24) available CPU0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz stepping 01 /proc/cpuinfo: processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 3193.459 cache size : 1024 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 3 wp : yes From what I can tell, some P4 processors are 64-bit and others are not. How can I tell if I am 64-bit capable? I really don't want to remove the heat sink to look at the processor. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.3-rc2
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I wonder if perhaps we could get a more blog-like interface to the news items sections, some sort of framework that would drop in place to the current site. I'll have to look around, but of course if anyone else already has an idea about what would work, let's hear it. :) I would really not want anyone except editors to update the web site. Its really pretty easy. svn checkout ... (once); edit html; svn commit -m '...' and its done. I just checked and I think all the active editors have commit privs, so that should not be a problem. If we've left out someone, give me a yell and I'll fix it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 64 bit processors
Bruce Dubbs wrote: How can I tell if I have a 64 bit processor? Try to boot a 64-bit kernel there. Either download a LFS LiveCD (even the x86 version - the 64-bit kernel is named linux64 there), or follow the initial binutils and gcc instructions in CLFS. The resulting gcc is able to cross-compile a 64-bit kernel (make ARCH=x86_64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu- menuconfig make ARCH=x86_64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-). And if you don't want to download anything big and/or waste the CPU time, here is a pre-made 64-bit kernel that, however, doesn't support your hardware without initramfs: http://ums.usu.ru/~patrakov/test/linux64 Just add it to GRUB menu. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 64 bit processors
On 8/13/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys, How can I tell if I have a 64 bit processor? dmesg gives: CPU0: Intel P4/Xeon Extended MCE MSRs (24) available CPU0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz stepping 01 /proc/cpuinfo: processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 3193.459 cache size : 1024 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 3 wp : yes From what I can tell, some P4 processors are 64-bit and others are not. How can I tell if I am 64-bit capable? I really don't want to remove the heat sink to look at the processor. There's probably a better way, but grab x86info, build, run as root. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/x86info/ If you're on intel and you have em64t in the Extended feature flags, it supports the Intel 64 bit extensions. If you have the cpuid kernel module (CONFIG_X86_CPUID), you can get some more info out of the processor. This also looks interesting: http://processorfinder.intel.com/ -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
