Hi Mario,
I can't seem to reproduce this either, but many things have changed in
my environment.
In any case, I'll just close this out for now.
Thanks.
** Changed in: dkms (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
** Changed in: dkms (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275
Title:
allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
To manage notifications about this
Alex,
Is this still actually necessary? I just made an attempt to reproduce
your problem in a 32 bit natty chroot from a 64 bit lucid box using DKMS
master as of today with a simple kernel module (nvidiabl) and couldn't
reproduce it.
supermario@serverman:~$ uname -a
Linux serverman 2.6.32-31-ser
Mario,
This bug has been sitting for a while, and I'd like to learn if you
still have any objections to the proposed patch (and if so, why?).
Thanks!
--
allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
** Tags added: patch
--
allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/ma
As mentioned in IRC w/ tseliot,
it's better to pass the right argument for the architecture from the
template than it is to add individual hacks along the way.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:54, Mario Limonciello
wrote:
> However some distros do support an i386 or i686 kernel build. I'm thinking
>
Ok, I checked with mjg59.
He says that the only difference between 386/586/686 flavors of RHEL is
the kernel config, which leads to different compiler optimizations. The
ARCH string has nothing to do with that.
So passing either "i386" or "x86" to force a 32-bit build is perfectly
safe, even for
However some distros do support an i386 or i686 kernel build. I'm thinking
RHEL specifically.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:44, Alex Chiang wrote:
> i686 is 32 bit, so yes, you would want to pass i386 in that
> scenario.
>
> Only x86_64 is recognized as 64-bit.
>
> If it will reduce confusion for f
i686 is 32 bit, so yes, you would want to pass i386 in that
scenario.
Only x86_64 is recognized as 64-bit.
If it will reduce confusion for future maintainers, you could
s/i386/x86/ in that patch.
The kernel Makefile recognizes both "i386" and "x86" as "do a
32-bit build".
--
allow 32-bit modul
I'm not convinced this patch is correct. What if you are building an
i686 kernel? You shouldn't be applying i386 in that scenario.
--
allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
** Patch added: "do-build-respect-arch.patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275/+attachment/1673613/+files/do-build-respect-arch.patch
--
allow 32-bit module build on 64-bit host
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655275
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
11 matches
Mail list logo
