On Don, 2006-03-16 at 00:41 +0100, Jörg W Mittag wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
> > Some type of userspace setup is planned for 2.7, just no details at this
> > time.
>
> Could you give some more specifics on that? I, too, remeber that
> there was indeed something planned for 2.7, but that was waaa
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Some type of userspace setup is planned for 2.7, just no details at this
> time.
Could you give some more specifics on that? I, too, remeber that
there was indeed something planned for 2.7, but that was waaay back
when there was gonna *be* a 2.7. Now we know that there won'
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, J�rg Billeter wrote:
I've now built about 550 packages on x86 and on x86_64 with my generated
header set and besides the few problems already mentioned before I've
got only two additional problems in the last 300 packages (one needed
header was missing and I had to add --wit
On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 21:06 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger Blake wrote:
>
> > Although the script might be a good *short term* plan I think an adequate
> > long term solution requires a complete evaluation of *each* header -
> > identifying what code to delete or include.
On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 20:02 +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Unfortunately, as Jurg points out earlier in this thread, there are
> plenty of headers that are missing those guards and I'm not entirely
> sure that such guards are a complete solution (if they were I don't
> think all the hairy looki
Some type of userspace setup is planned for 2.7, just no details at this
time.
--
--
[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 abo
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger Blake wrote:
Although the script might be a good *short term* plan I think an adequate
long term solution requires a complete evaluation of *each* header -
identifying what code to delete or include. From what I can see the majority
of these headers are NOT required
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
My thought of the logic:
content of mykernelheader.h:
<...>
/* BEGIN USERSPACE HEADER */
...
...some header important for userspace...
...
/* END USERSPACE HEADER */
<...>
If think that's essentially what the #ifdef __KERNEL__ guards do in
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 19:36, Roger Blake wrote:
> >Having done some research on this, Jim's script (with all the help he's
> >been getting on the lists and IRC) looks like the best bet. It's also
> >the 'Right Way Forward' (tm), as it will deal with the increasing
> >complexity of the Lin
>Having done some research on this, Jim's script (with all the help he's
>been getting on the lists and IRC) looks like the best bet. It's also
>the 'Right Way Forward' (tm), as it will deal with the increasing
>complexity of the Linux kernel. The trick will be making it work for
>all the arches
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
>> Well, that's that then.
>
> Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on.
>
> My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting
> the santizing script into a state suitable for review on LKML
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
Well, that's that then.
Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on.
My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting
the santizing script into a state suitable for review on LKML and have
it added to the kernel t
Well, that's that then.
Over to you Jim, mate.
R.
--
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP
http://www.langside.org.uk PGP fingerprint:
D682 49A5 7050 E781 229C A2F0 DE1F C040 DE78 53E8
--- Begin Message ---
LLH hasn't seen a new release for a lot more than six months now and up until
today I hoped to g
13 matches
Mail list logo
