On Friday 14 March 2008 21:20:52 Martin Hejl wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> >> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> >> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been
> >> no response on this list on the topic.
> >
> > Sorry, Martin, I only read the l
On Saturday 08 March 2008 13:30:04 Erich Titl wrote:
> Hi Martin
>
> Martin Hejl wrote, at 07.03.2008 21:56:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> > discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no
> > response on this li
Hi John,
>> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
>> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been
>> no response on this list on the topic.
>
> Sorry, Martin, I only read the list as a newsgroup, every week or so.
No problem. I just started
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:56:17 +0100
Martin Hejl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been
> no response on this list on the topic.
Sorry, Martin, I only read the list as
Hi David,
> (2) with a 2.6 you can embed your whole file system into the
> kernel and boot and go just from the kernel -- no file system at all --
> that way you don't have to pivot-root from the initrd -- just stay there.
>
>
> I'm sort of fishing for stories about why that might be a bad idea,
>
Hi David,
> I'm sort of fishing for stories about why that might be a bad idea, beyond
> that 1: it varies from standard practice and 2: the initramfs is not backed
> by swap, as normal shmfs is
Well, one downside of this approach is that you cannot control the size
of the root-fs by a variable in
Hi David,
> (2) with a 2.6 you can embed your whole file system into the
> kernel and boot and go just from the kernel -- no file system at all --
> that way you don't have to pivot-root from the initrd -- just stay there.
>
That's not correct. Indeed you can make a choice to include the initramfs
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Martin Hejl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> oops - sorry
>
> > Hi Nicol,
> make that "Hi David"
I wasn't trying to make any point; just sharing my experiences that
(1) tinygentoo image was easy to work with for creating uclibc-linked
this and that (2) with a 2.6 you
> But sooner or later, floppy support will have to go anyway - since there
> won't be any new systems that are shipped with a floppy. For embedded
Who dedicates a new box to running a LEAF firewall with all the free
old boxes around? ;-)
"But seriously folks", for those who DO use old hardware t
oops - sorry
> Hi Nicol,
make that "Hi David"
sorry about that
Martin
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct
Hi Charles,
> Besides driver issues, another reason to migrate to a 2.6 kernel is
> support for IPV6, which will become vastly more important in the years
> to come, particularly outside the US, where the IPV4 address pool is
> already beginning to be exhausted.
Good point. I haven't had to touch
Hi Nicol,
thanks for your feedback,
> I had no trouble running the 3.1 release candidate with a static 2.6 kernel;
Well, but doesn't a static kernel (I assume you mean that everything you
needed was compiled into the kernel statically, rather than as a module)
pretty much stand against everythin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Titl wrote:
| Actually playing with e1000 for 2.4 reset me a little lately. Definitely
| I am convinced that if LEAF wants to go on strongly we need to be on par
| with other project which do similar work, e.g. 2.6 is a must.
|
| And for all you
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Martin Hejl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no
> response on this list on the topic. Is somebody actually interes
Hi Paul,
thanks for your feedback
> With that
> experience,
> my question would be, what significant benefits does the 2.6 kernel
> provide to a minimalist system?
For me, the main reason was new drivers. It appears that more and more
things are only added to the 2.6 kernel, and not to the 2.4
> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no
> response on this list on the topic. Is somebody actually interested in
> continued work on that image (and has just not had an issue with it what
> I've posted last Saturday), or did I scare off people with my too
> verbose
Hi Erich,
> And for all your effort which point into the future here it is _WELL DONE_
;-)
> One of my concerns in the 2.6 branch will be IPSEC, as now we need to
> use the native stack. It appears that with using the native stack IPSEC
> will be an application like any other, so we may have now
Hi Martin
Martin Hejl wrote, at 07.03.2008 21:56:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no
> response on this list on the topic. Is somebody actually interested in
> continued wor
Hi Mike,
>> I didn't expect a storm of activity - but I (perhaps foolishly) expected
>> some sort of response. I'm not looking for a "good job, well done"
>> response - but some sort of feedback that somebody is actually giving
>> the latest developments a try would be helpful. Without any kind of
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 21:56 +0100, Martin Hejl wrote:
> this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
> discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no
> response on this list on the topic. Is somebody actually interested in
> continued work on that
Hi all,
this is a little depressing. After spending years (and tons of emails)
discussing the need for a kernel 2.6 version of LEAF, there has been no
response on this list on the topic. Is somebody actually interested in
continued work on that image (and has just not had an issue with it what
I'v
Hi everybody,
for the last few weeks, Dirk Gfroerer, Eric Spakman and myself have been
working on getting kernel 2.6 to work with Bering-uClibc. By now, we
have things working enough that we feel it's fit to be shown to the
other leaf developers out there. It is by no means ready, probably not
eve
22 matches
Mail list logo
