Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote: If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 09:38 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote: If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37. It's very rare that we get a free hand in the choice of kernel version. We get stuck with whichever version the silicon vendor chooses to support, so it would be bad for us if we couldn't use an older kernel in our layers. Cheers, Chris. ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Friday 08 July 2011 09:46:34 Chris Elston wrote: It's very rare that we get a free hand in the choice of kernel version. We get stuck with whichever version the silicon vendor chooses to support, so it would be bad for us if we couldn't use an older kernel in our layers. Just out of interest, what's the oldest kernel you have to deal with in your current/recent projects? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 09:38 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote: If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37. They can always provide their own OLDEST_KERNEL setting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is. p. ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 11:03 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Friday 08 July 2011 10:53:49 Phil Blundell wrote: They can always provide their own OLDEST_KERNEL setting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is. Yes, but let's have a sensible default value, in particular that will allow the majority not to experience subtle problems that they will have to spend time tracking down. Many people coming to OE fresh will not know this setting even exists - I only discovered it the other day by accident. If OLDEST_KERNEL is set to a value that's too new then the failure you get is anything but subtle: glibc will just print kernel too old and exit. I guess we could enhance that message to refer directly to OLDEST_KERNEL to make it a bit more obvious what you need to do. Also, we could teach kernel.bbclass to issue a diagnostic if you try to build a kernel that's older than OLDEST_KERNEL. p. ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Friday 08 July 2011 11:12:12 Phil Blundell wrote: If OLDEST_KERNEL is set to a value that's too new then the failure you get is anything but subtle: glibc will just print kernel too old and exit. OK, I had just assumed you would just get errors about missing syscalls, good to know that it would be more obvious than that. I guess we could enhance that message to refer directly to OLDEST_KERNEL to make it a bit more obvious what you need to do. Also, we could teach kernel.bbclass to issue a diagnostic if you try to build a kernel that's older than OLDEST_KERNEL. These sound like good ideas. I'll add them to my todo list to have a look at if nobody else gets there first. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 07:17 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote: If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37. Its similar to a situation where some of the layers might be using gcc older than 4.6.0 but we still chose 4.6.0 in default distro vars. There always is a possibility to override it if user has to. For now, I've merged the 2.6.16 patch since there seem to be good reasons for making things at least that recent. Its certainly better than 2.4! :) Cheers, Richard ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
[OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Since we no longer support 2.4, update this setting to 2.6.0. (This affects
eglibc's kernel support).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com
---
meta/conf/bitbake.conf |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
index bdaa35d..56a867b 100644
--- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
+++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = ${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}
# Kernel info.
##
-OLDEST_KERNEL = 2.4.0
+OLDEST_KERNEL = 2.6.0
STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = ${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/kernel
##
--
1.7.4.1
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug
that fixed over 2.6.0
Op 7 jul. 2011 om 14:11 heeft Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com het
volgende geschreven:
Since we no longer support 2.4, update this setting to 2.6.0. (This affects
eglibc's kernel support).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com
---
meta/conf/bitbake.conf |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
index bdaa35d..56a867b 100644
--- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
+++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = ${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}
# Kernel info.
##
-OLDEST_KERNEL = 2.4.0
+OLDEST_KERNEL = 2.6.0
STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = ${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/kernel
##
--
1.7.4.1
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote: angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0 Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet. A trawl of the OE history turns up these two: --- commit 8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132 Author: Tom Rini tom_r...@mentor.com Date: Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700 glibc*.inc: Bump OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16 Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9 Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream). --- commit 794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420 Author: Koen Kooi k...@openembedded.org Date: Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200 Angstrom 2009.X: set OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16 to avoid problems with ppoll() --- Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
