On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:42:37PM +0100, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Eelco Dolstra
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 19/11/12 15:28, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> >
> But I imagine Eelco wants glibc to be built for 3.5 kernels or above.
> >>>
> >>> Stdenv has "--enable
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Eelco Dolstra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19/11/12 15:28, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>
But I imagine Eelco wants glibc to be built for 3.5 kernels or above.
>>>
>>> Stdenv has "--enable-kernel=2.6.35".
>>
>> Do you favour a higher value?
>
> Is there a good reason
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:37:45PM +0100, Eelco Dolstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19/11/12 15:28, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>
> >>> But I imagine Eelco wants glibc to be built for 3.5 kernels or above.
> >>
> >> Stdenv has "--enable-kernel=2.6.35".
> >
> > Do you favour a higher value?
>
> Is th
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Eelco Dolstra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19/11/12 15:28, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>
But I imagine Eelco wants glibc to be built for 3.5 kernels or above.
>>>
>>> Stdenv has "--enable-kernel=2.6.35".
>>
>> Do you favour a higher value?
>
> Is there a good reason
Hi,
On 19/11/12 15:28, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>>> But I imagine Eelco wants glibc to be built for 3.5 kernels or above.
>>
>> Stdenv has "--enable-kernel=2.6.35".
>
> Do you favour a higher value?
Is there a good reason for a higher value? Certainly it can't be higher than
3.2 since th
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Eelco Dolstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19/11/12 14:39, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>
> > As for glibc, the glibc has to be told the minimum kernel version to build
> > for.
> > It will use not all syscalls available in the headers, but only those which
> >
Hi,
On 19/11/12 14:39, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> As for glibc, the glibc has to be told the minimum kernel version to build
> for.
> It will use not all syscalls available in the headers, but only those which
> match the 'configure' argument requirement.
>
> But I imagine Eelco wants glib
Lluís Batlle i Rossell writes:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:26:00PM +0100, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
>> Marco Maggesi writes:
>>
>> > For the record, I still use 2.6.35 which is the newest kernel
>> > supporting BLCR presently available in NixoOS (BLCR needs kernels <=
>> > 2.6.38).
>> > By the way,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:26:00PM +0100, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
> Marco Maggesi writes:
>
> > For the record, I still use 2.6.35 which is the newest kernel
> > supporting BLCR presently available in NixoOS (BLCR needs kernels <=
> > 2.6.38).
> > By the way, for what I can say, this makes NixOS the
Marco Maggesi writes:
> For the record, I still use 2.6.35 which is the newest kernel
> supporting BLCR presently available in NixoOS (BLCR needs kernels <=
> 2.6.38).
> By the way, for what I can say, this makes NixOS the only distribution
> which currently supports easily BLCR (just add two lin
For the record, I still use 2.6.35 which is the newest kernel
supporting BLCR presently available in NixoOS (BLCR needs kernels <=
2.6.38).
By the way, for what I can say, this makes NixOS the only distribution
which currently supports easily BLCR (just add two lines in
configuration.nix).
Seems th
Hi,
On 18/11/12 20:58, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
> Indeed I didn't think about 2.6.35 being our current headers, so
> indeed we should keep 2.6.35 until stdenv-upgrades.
FWIW, the stdenv branch already uses Linux 3.5.x for the kernel headers.
--
Eelco Dolstra | LogicBlox, Inc. | http://nixos.org/~ee
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:18:52AM +0100, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
> Sure, no hurries.
> Let's say we wait a month or so, 3.7 will be out too. I will then ask
> again about 3.5
>
> So do we all agree on the other ones being obsolete?
As for me, for all I remember, yes.
> PS:
> I feel a bit awkward fo
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:
>> Mathijs Kwik writes:
>>
>> > Ok, so this means that setting networking.wireless.driver to
>> > "nl80211" would do the trick.
>>
>> Indeed, that solved the issue for
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think initially some of the old kernels were re-added by a colleague
> of mine to allow continuous integration testing of a kernel module
> against a variety of Linux versions.
>
> It’s no longer used, but that kind of use may sti
Hi,
I think initially some of the old kernels were re-added by a colleague
of mine to allow continuous integration testing of a kernel module
against a variety of Linux versions.
It’s no longer used, but that kind of use may still make sense.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
_
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:
> Mathijs Kwik writes:
>
> > Ok, so this means that setting networking.wireless.driver to
> > "nl80211" would do the trick.
>
> Indeed, that solved the issue for me. Thanks for your help, guys!
>
> As far as I am concerned, I'm fine
Mathijs Kwik writes:
> Ok, so this means that setting networking.wireless.driver to
> "nl80211" would do the trick.
Indeed, that solved the issue for me. Thanks for your help, guys!
As far as I am concerned, I'm fine with 3.5.x being removed.
Take care,
Peter
Quoting Mathijs Kwik (2012-11-18 18:39:59)
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Michael Raskin <7c6f4...@mail.ru> wrote:
> >>Hi Mathijs,
> >>
> >> > Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
> >>
> >>I'm still using 3.5. I cannot upgrade to 3.6 yet, because my wireless
> >>i
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:17:57AM +0100, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
>> Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
>> If not, we should probably take them out, as they won't be receiving
>> updates any more.
>
> We
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:17:57AM +0100, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
> Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
> If not, we should probably take them out, as they won't be receiving
> updates any more.
We still use the kernel headers from 2.6.35. As for 2.6.15 or anything <.35
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Michael Raskin <7c6f4...@mail.ru> wrote:
>>Hi Mathijs,
>>
>> > Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
>>
>>I'm still using 3.5. I cannot upgrade to 3.6 yet, because my wireless
>>interface (iwlwifi: Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205 AGN) wo
>Hi Mathijs,
>
> > Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
>
>I'm still using 3.5. I cannot upgrade to 3.6 yet, because my wireless
>interface (iwlwifi: Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205 AGN) won't work with
>the new kernel for some reason.
iwconfig stopped working as Wire
Quoting Peter Simons (2012-11-18 14:30:18)
> Hi Mathijs,
>
> > Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
>
> I'm still using 3.5. I cannot upgrade to 3.6 yet, because my wireless
> interface (iwlwifi: Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205 AGN) won't work with
> the new kernel
Hi Mathijs,
> Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
I'm still using 3.5. I cannot upgrade to 3.6 yet, because my wireless
interface (iwlwifi: Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205 AGN) won't work with
the new kernel for some reason.
Take care,
Peter
_
Is anyone still using linux 2.6.15 or 2.6.35 or 3.1 or 3.3 or 3.5 ?
If not, we should probably take them out, as they won't be receiving
updates any more.
As for 2.6.35, a downgrade to 2.6.34 or 2.6.32 would do the trick,
they receive long-time support.
2.6.32 is in nixpkgs already, 2.6.34 isn't.
26 matches
Mail list logo
