David,
On Thursday 27 December 2001 12:22 am, David Douthitt wrote:
> In Linux 2.2, a compiled version of the kernel creates a directory
> linux/modules with all the modules linked to, with files containing a
> list of each set of modules (like NET_MODULES, etc.).
>
> Where's this directory gone
In Linux 2.2, a compiled version of the kernel creates a directory
linux/modules with all the modules linked to, with files containing a
list of each set of modules (like NET_MODULES, etc.).
Where's this directory gone in 2.4?
--
David Douthitt
UNIX Systems Administrator
HP-UX, Unixware, Linux
[E
David Douthitt wrote:
>>I'd vote for 2.2. It may be bigger, but 2.1 will be unmaintained rather
>>soon I'm afraid. So when we choose for glibc 2.1 we might end up with
>>the same mess as we have for glibc 2.0 now in a year or so. Unless one
>>of us is capable of backporting security fixes 2.2 is
Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
> David Douthitt wrote:
>
> >Pim van Riezen wrote:
> >>if I want to produce binaries I'll have to use three different
> >>environments if I want to cater for all glibc variations. Now that
> >>RH7/glibc2.2 is gaining acceptance that'll be four:
> >>
> >> libc5
> Is any
On Thu, 17 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> > Why I never went anywhere with mine was mostly because I sent out several
> > e-mails to this list, and the lack of a response was almost deafening in
> > it's silence. If I recall, not even you commented David. I assumed that
> > people had weighed
David Douthitt wrote:
>Pim van Riezen wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
>>
>>>I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
>>>2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
>>>get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets igno
George Metz wrote:
> Why I never went anywhere with mine was mostly because I sent out several
> e-mails to this list, and the lack of a response was almost deafening in
> it's silence. If I recall, not even you commented David. I assumed that
> people had weighed the concept and decided it wasn'
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> Sounds like a good reason to shift from using glibc 2.0 to using glibc
> 2.1 or 2.2. I, too, have seen teh MESS that comes from trying to
> compile things for glibc 2.0. In particular, there are several
> applications which don't seem like they'll co
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
Not entirely. I've got a newlibs.tgz sitting on m
Pim van Riezen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
>
> > I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> > 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> > get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
> For me, it's
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
>
> To me, Linux 2.4 offers only this:
>
> * State
I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
To me, Linux 2.4 offers only this:
* Stateful firewalling
We don't see question after question on
I was surprised to see:
* No Openwall patch for 2.4
* No VPN+Masq patch for 2.4
But not so surprised to see
* No linuxrc-always patch for 2.4
* No initrd patch for 2.4
And yet,
* LIDS patch available for 2.4
I also noticed that NONE of the above are available
for Linux 2.2.19.
Anybody know
At 11:23 AM 11/30/00 -0600, "Charles Steinkuehler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I have a 2.4 kernel that boots into LRP (I get a login prompt and
> > >can login as root).
> >
> > How large is it, or is that question premature?
>
>The kernel alone is 579,646 bytes, but I included support for ju
Hello charles
>
> For the truly adventerous, you can grab the kernel, modules, and config file
> I used here:
> http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/kernel/2.4.0-test11/
>
> At the moment, it's VERY UNTESTED, but the kernel DOES boot, and seems to
> properly load the ramdisk. Don't even think about play
> In that case, I wonder why the initrd and other LRP-specific patches never
> made it into the kernel tree. They've been around long enough to have
proved
> themselves as reliable code, so that presumably isn't it. What is the
> barrier? Anyone know (since it might affect any newer patches develo
Ray Olszewski wrote:
> In that case, I wonder why the initrd and other LRP-specific patches never
> made it into the kernel tree. They've been around long enough to have proved
> themselves as reliable code, so that presumably isn't it. What is the
> barrier? Anyone know (since it might affect any
At 12:17 PM 11/30/00 -0500, Rick Onanian wrote:
...
>
>> >as I said, who would want 'em?
>>
>> Linus may. I understand he is very interested in embedded targets.
>
>Well, in that case...isn't it our duty to make and submit patches
>when we find ourselves capable of and motivated to do so?
In tha
> >I have a 2.4 kernel that boots into LRP (I get a login prompt and can
> >login as root).
>
> How large is it, or is that question premature?
The kernel alone is 579,646 bytes, but I included support for just about
everything that could be modularized, and some of that support probably
inflates
Mike Noyes wrote:
> Rick,
> Did you get a chance to read the 7 page Taxonomy article in Embedded Linux
No, I'm a lazy-ass bastard...didn't you know? ;)
> Journal? It explains the tree pretty well. I came to my conclusion about
> kernel patches after reading the article a couple of times. Of cour
At 08:58 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Noyes wrote:
> > My interpretation of the taxonomy leads me to believe that once you
> > start doing kernel patches you are creating an embedded distribution.
>
>I don't think so...I see it as a large combination of things,
At 09:20 AM 11/30/00 -0600, "Charles Steinkuehler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Success!!! (At least I think so)
Congratulations! That was quick.
>I have a 2.4 kernel that boots into LRP (I get a login prompt and can
>login as root).
How large is it, or is that question premature?
--
Mike Noy
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> Success!!! (At least I think so)
>
> I have a 2.4 kernel that boots into LRP (I get a login prompt and can login
> as root).
WooHoo!!! :)
> Of course none of the modules match the kernel version, so it's pretty
> useless right now...I'm compiling the required modul
Success!!! (At least I think so)
I have a 2.4 kernel that boots into LRP (I get a login prompt and can login
as root).
Of course none of the modules match the kernel version, so it's pretty
useless right now...I'm compiling the required modules for 2.4 and will test
further. I'll put the kernel
Mike Noyes wrote:
> Disclaimer: This is just my view, and it's probably wrong.
These are all our own personal views; the same disclaimer applies.
> My interpretation of the taxonomy leads me to believe that once you start
> doing kernel patches you are creating an embedded distribution. I'm unsu
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > I don't want to repeat the problems of the Q&A doc.
>
> Yeah... formats can be like religions...
Ah, but you missed our failed attempt. The problem wasn't that
any of us were loyal to a given format, but that there was no
format that all of us could figure out how to us
At 11:41 AM 11/30/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > At 09:39 AM 11/30/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[...]
> > >The only restriction would be that whatever gets c
> Everyone,
> Note: I'm not a developer, so the following comments may be out of line.
>
> I think we're drifting from the purpose LEAF was started for. I thought we
> agreed that we weren't going to create an embedded distribution. This
means
> we wouldn't create our own kernel patches, and we wo
Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 09:39 AM 11/30/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
> >The only restriction would be that whatever gets checked in, is what
> >gets checked out... ie if someone checks in a document in
Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
> I suggest the following structure for CVS:
>
> /eigerstein +
> +- ?
> /oxygen +
> +- ?
>
> /doc +
> +- devel_guide
> +- etc.
>
> /web +
> +- images
> +- devel_pages +
> + mhnoyes
>
At 04:31 PM 11/29/00 -0500, Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Noyes wrote:
> > I think we're drifting from the purpose LEAF was started for. I
> > thought we agreed that we weren't going to create an embedded
> > distribution. This means we wouldn't create our own kernel patches,
> > a
At 09:39 AM 11/30/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > At 09:48 AM 11/29/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >G'day all,
>[...]
> > >IMHO, everything should be put into CVS, including webpages and
> > >documentat
Quoting Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 09:48 AM 11/29/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >G'day all,
[...]
> >IMHO, everything should be put into CVS, including webpages and
> >documentation. CVS gives you a revision history and backup archive.
[...]
> While I agree wi
Mike Noyes wrote:
> Everyone,
> Note: I'm not a developer, so the following comments may be out of line.
Neither am I...but I'll give you my take on it.
> I think we're drifting from the purpose LEAF was started for. I thought we
> agreed that we weren't going to create an embedded distribution.
At 11:49 AM 11/29/00 -0800, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charles and David should determine what is included in their sub
Correction:
directories. Developers can help with either LEAF release as they see
>fit, or create their ow
Everyone,
Note: I'm not a developer, so the following comments may be out of line.
I think we're drifting from the purpose LEAF was started for. I thought we
agreed that we weren't going to create an embedded distribution. This means
we wouldn't create our own kernel patches, and we would remai
On 28 Nov 2000, at 11:20, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> One major issue is exactly how to structure things: i.e. are your
> heavily modified scripts a branch from 2.9.[7|8] or a new tree?
My scripts originated in 2.9.7; /linuxrc has almost no remains from
2.9.7 in it. The next most heavily m
At 09:48 AM 11/29/00 +1100, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>G'day all,
>
>my 2c, from a lurker.
>
>Quoting Charles Steinkuehler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > > David, Do you agree with Charles? Should we put the scripts on
> > > > CVS, or do you have another idea?
> > >
> > > I'm not sur
G'day all,
my 2c, from a lurker.
Quoting Charles Steinkuehler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > David, Do you agree with Charles? Should we put the scripts on CVS,
> > > or do you have another idea?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you all mean by "the scripts." As Charles noted, I
[...]
> > Are these the s
> > David, Do you agree with Charles? Should we put the scripts on CVS,
> > or do you have another idea?
>
> I'm not sure what you all mean by "the scripts." As Charles noted, I
> completely and ruthlessly revamped /linuxrc and everything on down.
> For me, that means /linuxrc and everything in /
On 27 Nov 2000, at 12:03, Mike Noyes wrote:
> David, Do you agree with Charles? Should we put the scripts on CVS,
> or do you have another idea?
I'm not sure what you all mean by "the scripts." As Charles noted, I
completely and ruthlessly revamped /linuxrc and everything on down.
For me, t
At 01:04 PM 11/27/00 -0600, "Charles Steinkuehler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Noyes wrote:
> > At 01:06 PM 11/25/00 -0600, "Charles Steinkuehler"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >IMHO, this would be the perfect project and appropriate time to turn
> > >LRP distributions from 'one-man-ban
> At 01:06 PM 11/25/00 -0600, "Charles Steinkuehler"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >IMHO, this would be the perfect project and appropriate time to turn LRP
> >distributions from 'one-man-band' projects to a real open source,
> >community driven project (ie I don't want to do all the work myself,
At 01:06 PM 11/25/00 -0600, "Charles Steinkuehler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IMHO, this would be the perfect project and appropriate time to turn LRP
>distributions from 'one-man-band' projects to a real open source,
>community driven project (ie I don't want to do all the work myself, but
>
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> This is pretty high on my list of 'TODOs'...I have a friend who's being
> IMHO, this would be the perfect project and appropriate time to turn LRP
> distributions from 'one-man-band' projects to a real open source, community
> driven project (ie I don't want to do al
> Does anybody here feel up to the task of getting a Linux 2.4
> version going?
>
> If we can build a Linux 2.4 firewall on a floppy, we will be
> in ship shape. Doing so would greatly distinguish us from our
> LRP roots, while furthering it's efforts greatly also.
>
> A Linux 2.4 LEAF firewall-on
Does anybody here feel up to the task of getting a Linux 2.4
version going?
If we can build a Linux 2.4 firewall on a floppy, we will be
in ship shape. Doing so would greatly distinguish us from our
LRP roots, while furthering it's efforts greatly also.
A Linux 2.4 LEAF firewall-on-a-floppy wou
47 matches
Mail list logo
