DJ Lucas wrote:
Another very minor point is trying to find a way to rip out all the
__KERNEL__ portions
That's what the unifdef tool in FreeBSD does. It also works in Linux.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ajw/public/dist/unifdef-1.0.tar.gz
Note: Debian uses a CVS version for some reason, need to
Jim Gifford wrote:
I'm only posting this because my results have been positive, and I think
the community has a right to see what I've come up with in 18 hours that
I've worked on this.
Thanks Jim. I'm looking forward to playing with this at the weekend.
Andy
--
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Another very minor point is trying to find a way to rip out all the
__KERNEL__ portions
That's what the unifdef tool in FreeBSD does. It also works in Linux.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ajw/public/dist/unifdef-1.0.tar.gz
Note: Debian uses a
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:23:44PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
Note: this has all been discussed before. eg:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2003-October/039740.html
I still think this whole issue is dangerous territory for non-programmers
and I will not be supporting any of
Jim Gifford wrote:
A lot of you may have noticed the LLH kernel headers have not been
updated as promised. With that in mind, I decided to do some tests over
the past few days building LFS and CLFS with raw kernel headers.
Unfortunately the raw kernel headers are not enough, but with minor
Another very minor point is trying to find a way to rip out all the
__KERNEL__ portions
That's what the unifdef tool in FreeBSD does. It also works in Linux.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ajw/public/dist/unifdef-1.0.tar.gz
Note: Debian uses a CVS version for some reason, need to investigate.
On 3/7/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Changes are
relative to the book in
Jeremy's home dir:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-alphabetical/
The build is ICA verified. All tests were run and kernel built with
allyesconfig. Results contain no regressions from
Dan Nicholson wrote:
The build is ICA verified. All tests were run and kernel built with
allyesconfig. Results contain no regressions from current LFS SVN
except for two GCC test suite failures from applying the patch in
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1718. Will probably wait
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at merging
these changes into trunk?
A.S.A.P please, though I'd prefer if you could wait until Chris'
dependency stuff was in before merging. I'm going to have to trust
yours, Dan's and Chris' hard work and
Based on comments that I have received, I've updated the script. I will
start putting in a version # at the top. Thank you all for you comments
and suggestions. I really appreciate them.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
The build is ICA verified. All tests were run and kernel built with
allyesconfig. Results contain no regressions from current LFS SVN
except for two GCC test suite failures from applying the patch in
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1718.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at merging
these changes into trunk?
I'm with Matt on this one and do it sooner rather than later. I do want
Chris' dependencies finalized and added to this alphabetical branch so
we can implement this in one
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at
merging these changes into trunk?
A.S.A.P please, though I'd prefer if you could wait until Chris'
dependency stuff was in before merging. I'm going to have to trust
yours, Dan's
Jim Gifford wrote:
Based on comments that I have received, I've updated the script. I will
start putting in a version # at the top. Thank you all for you comments
and suggestions. I really appreciate them.
Cool, Jim. Overall, good work. A couple of things:
* As the script currently is, it
On 3/8/06, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still updating my dependency list here -
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt
Unfortunately my network connection died yesterday, and I neglected to
copy this file to my own system (shame on me!) so I couldn't add more
till
Στις Τετ 08 Μαρ 2006 03:03, GMT+2, ο/η Dan Nicholson έγραψε:
On 3/7/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good enough for me. The new build order goes:
Oops, forgot about the moved libtool:
My mind is exploding! Libtool hard
Lefteris Dimitroulakis wrote:
I do not know about the iana-etc but for the other packages
your build order looks like following the rule :
try to reduce the influence of tools as soon and as much as possible
under ch6.
This is a very reasonable way of thinking for me specially if it is
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 3/8/06, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still updating my dependency list here -
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt
Unfortunately my network connection died yesterday, and I neglected to
copy this file to my own system (shame on me!) so I
Actually passive-ftp is now the default. So got that fixed.
Also changed the dir so it's not hard-coded.
Also added the fixing of s variables, which I found out also need to be
converted.
New version should be up shortly.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
On 3/8/06, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think deps. that are needed for testsuites could be labeled as being
optional (notice I already started doing that for a few packages) but
you could do the same with several others. For example...
I saw that and started making those same
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:10:58 -0800
Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/8/06, Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think deps. that are needed for testsuites could be labeled as
being optional (notice I already started doing that for a few
packages) but you could do the same with
Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Just for the record, I'll go out on a limb (not really on a limb as
I can prove it with real life, actual circumstances) that the
$(...) syntax will work in situations where `...` will not.
You have me
DJ Lucas wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
This script is
available at http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers.
What I ask from the more advanced members of LFS and CLFS is to give
them a try, comment on them. Would they be useful to use as a temporary
alternative. a viable alternative, hard to
Thanx Alex and Richard for the pointer on unifdef. Version 00.03 just
posted uses unifdef to strip the kernel stuff out. Thanx.
The unifdef I used was download from
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ajw/public/dist/unifdef-1.0.tar.gz
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
It is time to start considering a new LFS release.
I see that we are behind on gcc and glibc as gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4 have
been released.
I don't think these are appropriate if we're thinking of a near-term
release. They're simply too new and untested at present. The
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 20:36, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
It is time to start considering a new LFS release.
I see that we are behind on gcc and glibc as gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4 have
been released.
The kernel is about to release 2.6.16 (they have been on 2.6.16-rc5 for
about two weeks
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 20:58, Archaic escribió:
Testsuite depends on: additional dependencies to run the testsuites
Of course. That is what 'additional' means ;-)
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:00:35PM +0100, M.Canales.es wrote:
Of course. That is what 'additional' means ;-)
Sometimes people (especially me) need an extra level of pedanticness to
avoid ambiguity. ;)
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened
Jim Gifford wrote:
Thanx Alex and Richard for the pointer on unifdef. Version 00.03 just
posted uses unifdef to strip the kernel stuff out. Thanx.
The unifdef I used was download from
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ajw/public/dist/unifdef-1.0.tar.gz
The email Greg refered to earlier mentioned
On 3/7/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A lot of you may have noticed the LLH kernel headers have not been
updated as promised. With that in mind, I decided to do some tests over
the past few days building LFS and CLFS with raw kernel headers.
Unfortunately the raw kernel headers are
Gerard, the one that Greg mentions wouldn't compile for me, and plus the
one I use is a package instead of individual files. Either one will work.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Gentoo is using a script similar to the above script to sanitize the
headers.
Do you have a pointer? Thanks.
Regards
Greg
--
http://www.diy-linux.org/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
On 3/8/06, Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Gentoo is using a script similar to the above script to sanitize the
headers.
Do you have a pointer? Thanks.
The kernel-2.eclass file at
http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/eclass/?hideattic=1 has
the gory
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
BTW, instead of writing to /tmp/new_header file, the script should
probably write to $header.orig. The file in /tmp may exist and may not
be owned by the user running the script.
Will be done in the next version, expect it shortly.
Also since this is starting to
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
The kernel-2.eclass file at
http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/eclass/?hideattic=1 has
the gory details on how gentoo creates the headers. It has lot of
extra functions since the same elcass is also used for kernel
compilation.
Ok, thanks. Tho' I had managed
Just playing the devil's advocate but have you run your script
against a 2.6.12 kernel and compared your output to the 'official'
2.6.12 llh files.
Jim Gifford wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
BTW, instead of writing to /tmp/new_header file, the script should
probably write to $header.orig.
George Boudreau wrote:
Just playing the devil's advocate but have you run your script against
a 2.6.12 kernel and compared your output to the 'official' 2.6.12 llh
files.
Jim Gifford wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
BTW, instead of writing to /tmp/new_header file, the script should
Greg,
I'm just working on that right now, first I wanted to see if it was
possible. I will be adding what I know to the mix in the next couple of
hours.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
Updated version with the links and why I did things is up. The only
thing that has been questionable and I'm still trying to research is the
__iomem removal.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
Jim Gifford wrote:
Updated version with the links and why I did things is up. The only
thing that has been questionable and I'm still trying to research is the
__iomem removal.
__iomem removal is not questionable at all. This macro indicates that
this is not a valid pointer that you can
On 3/8/06, Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grrr, Gentoo is a convoluted mess..
That's why we have LFS:-) plugBTW, if you need some rudimentary
scripts to make navigating thru the files easier, check out
distro-tools at http://linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/downloads/. I
have an updated
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
It is time to start considering a new LFS release.
Only after reverting all UTF-8 changes in trunk. BLFS as-is is not
ready, and BLFS+Wiki is not BLFS. And even BLFS+Wiki will take at least
three months before I can put it into shape. Matthew: sorry for
violating my
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
__iomem removal is not questionable at all. This macro indicates that
this is not a valid pointer that you can dereference directly, but a
cookie that you can pass to the ioremap() in-kernel function in order to
access the hardware via the MMIO mechanism. This
Thanx Greg, Fixed.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Archaic wrote:
What's the hurry? Who are we competing with? I'm not trying to be
defensive, but trying to sort out your reasoning. We all want a release,
but that should have happened a few months back. It just isn't ready
right now and a rush job is not a good idea.
No real hurry. I just
Nathan Coulson wrote:
I am finding that I have no time to work on the lfs bootscripts these
last few months, but at the moment I think I am the leader who decides
what gets added or not.
These days, I am barely even reading my email.
Sorry to see you go, but if you don't have the time, you
DJ Lucas wrote:
George Boudreau wrote:
Just playing the devil's advocate but have you run your script
against a 2.6.12 kernel and compared your output to the 'official'
2.6.12 llh files.
There is still a little more to do. unifdef will leave quite a few
empty files...well, empty cept
Sorry if this message arrives twice...
Jim Gifford wrote:
I'm only posting this because my results have been positive, and I think
the community has a right to see what I've come up with in 18 hours that
I've worked on this.
Jim, I'm seeing some diffs that concern me with 0.6 version
DJ Lucas wrote:
Jim, I'm seeing some diffs that concern me with 0.6 version of the
script when comparing to LLH. Also, I had a lot of .orig files left
in the output tree which probably partially explains the second
example below.
Fixed - I had the rm $header.orig in the wrong place.
There
49 matches
Mail list logo
