Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-22 17:35:25
|
Hey guys, at the moment it looks like I have to drop the support for kernel 2.4 in DL 1.3. If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... Anybody got a major problem with that? -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-22 17:44:33
|
> at the moment it looks like I have to drop the support for kernel 2.4 in > DL 1.3. > If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and > the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... > > Anybody got a major problem with that? Nope. I say go ahead and delete the 2.4 kernel source and anything else that's not needed. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-22 17:51:47
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>at the moment it looks like I have to drop the support for kernel 2.4 in >>DL 1.3. >>If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and >>the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... >> >>Anybody got a major problem with that? >> >> > >Nope. I say go ahead and delete the 2.4 kernel source and anything else >that's not needed. > > If we really need something together with 2.4 we still can add it to 1.2 once it's released. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-22 17:59:41
|
> >>at the moment it looks like I have to drop the support for kernel 2.4 in > >>DL 1.3. > >>If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and > >>the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... > >> > >>Anybody got a major problem with that? > > > >Nope. I say go ahead and delete the 2.4 kernel source and anything else > >that's not needed. > > If we really need something together with 2.4 we still can add it to 1.2 > once it's released. OK. Is there another new LFS I should download now? (current have 20040906) - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-22 18:07:35
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>at the moment it looks like I have to drop the support for kernel 2.4 in >>>>DL 1.3. >>>>If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and >>>>the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... >>>> >>>>Anybody got a major problem with that? >>>> >>>> >>>Nope. I say go ahead and delete the 2.4 kernel source and anything else >>>that's not needed. >>> >>> >>If we really need something together with 2.4 we still can add it to 1.2 >>once it's released. >> >> > >OK. > >Is there another new LFS I should download now? (current have 20040906) > > it needs to have a 'd' in the name. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-09-22 17:58:42
|
Bruce Smith wrote on 22.09.2004 19:44 MET: >>at the moment it looks like I have to drop the support for kernel 2.4 in >>DL 1.3. >>If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and >>the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... >> >>Anybody got a major problem with that? > > > Nope. I say go ahead and delete the 2.4 kernel source and anything else > that's not needed. 1.2 will we kernel 2.4 but 1.3 can surely be kernel 2.6 as it is a development release anyway. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-09-23 18:23:19
|
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:35:21PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and > the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... > > Anybody got a major problem with that? i'm not against moving dl to 2.6, but i don't like that the build system has also to be 2.6... mainly because i'm not using it... how complicated is complicated? :) -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-23 18:31:47
|
Diego Torres wrote: >On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:35:21PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > > >>If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 and >>the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... >> >>Anybody got a major problem with that? >> >> > >i'm not against moving dl to 2.6, but i don't like that the build system >has also to be 2.6... mainly because i'm not using it... > > > Actually it should work now with a 2.4 host. I updated the lfssystem on the server. >how complicated is complicated? :) > > A lot. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-09-23 22:27:15
|
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:31:45PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >i'm not against moving dl to 2.6, but i don't like that the build system > >has also to be 2.6... mainly because i'm not using it... > > > Actually it should work now with a 2.4 host. I updated the lfssystem on > the server. then no problem at all. i'll try it when i came back from barcelona and post something :) -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-24 12:12:19
|
Diego Torres wrote: >On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:31:45PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > >>>i'm not against moving dl to 2.6, but i don't like that the build system >>>has also to be 2.6... mainly because i'm not using it... >>> >>> >>> >>Actually it should work now with a 2.4 host. I updated the lfssystem on >>the server. >> >> > >then no problem at all. > >i'll try it when i came back from barcelona and post something :) > > Cool. Some parts still don't compile, if you hit one of those just de-select it via menuconfig. It would then be awesome if you could help me fix those packages. I'm currently also fighting with the SSP (stack smashing protector), some package just don't like it right now. There must be something different in the new version.... -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-09-29 16:15:24
|
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:12:16AM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Cool. > Some parts still don't compile, if you hit one of those just de-select > it via menuconfig. It would then be awesome if you could help me fix > those packages. # ./cvs.chroot cannot set up thread-local storage: set_thread_area failed when setting up thread-local storage ops... i'm still wondering with all the error msgs that i've never seen before :) -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-10-01 20:09:09
|
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:15:18PM +0200, Diego Torres wrote: > # ./cvs.chroot > cannot set up thread-local storage: set_thread_area failed when setting up thread-local storage i think its because i need nptl on my kernel to chroot to a glibc/nptl... can we just use a plain lfs, with no nptl? -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-03 21:58:22
|
Diego Torres wrote: >On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:15:18PM +0200, Diego Torres wrote: > > > >># ./cvs.chroot >>cannot set up thread-local storage: set_thread_area failed when setting up thread-local storage >> >> > >i think its because i need nptl on my kernel to chroot to a >glibc/nptl... can we just use a plain lfs, with no nptl? > > Hmmmm.... We need some kind of thread support and replacing linuxthreads with nptl at runtime didn't work. Looks like the 1.3 tree will require a build host with kernel 2.6..... -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-10-04 18:02:13
|
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 04:56:50PM -0500, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >glibc/nptl... can we just use a plain lfs, with no nptl? > We need some kind of thread support and replacing linuxthreads with nptl > at runtime didn't work. > > Looks like the 1.3 tree will require a build host with kernel 2.6..... is there a patch for 2.4.27 that incluides nptl? -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-04 18:35:53
|
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 04:56:50PM -0500, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >> >glibc/nptl... can we just use a plain lfs, with no nptl? > >> We need some kind of thread support and replacing linuxthreads with nptl >> at runtime didn't work. >> >> Looks like the 1.3 tree will require a build host with kernel 2.6..... > > is there a patch for 2.4.27 that incluides nptl? Not really Redhat had something messy for a much older kernel, but I didn't find anything newer. But it won't hurt when you take a look at it too, I could have missed something. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-10-05 18:42:23
|
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 02:34:34PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > But it won't hurt when you take a look at it too, I could have missed > something. so, making the long history short... i need a 2.6 kernel to compile a 2.6 kernel... -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-05 18:52:52
|
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 02:34:34PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > >> But it won't hurt when you take a look at it too, I could have missed >> something. > so, making the long history short... i need a 2.6 kernel to compile a 2.6 > kernel... In the DL case, yes. Or better if you want to do something with the 1.3 tree, you'll need a 2.6 kernel host. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-10-05 22:26:20
|
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 02:52:29PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Or better if you want to do something with the 1.3 tree, you'll need a 2.6 > kernel host. sh*t... :/ we need to get this fixed :( -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-06 00:14:50
|
Diego Torres wrote: >On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 02:52:29PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > > >>Or better if you want to do something with the 1.3 tree, you'll need a 2.6 >>kernel host. >> >> > >sh*t... :/ we need to get this fixed :( > > > I have no idea how. I tried a lot of things but none of them worked... -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-14 01:50:46
|
Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Diego Torres wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 02:52:29PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >> >> >> >>> Or better if you want to do something with the 1.3 tree, you'll need >>> a 2.6 >>> kernel host. >>> >> >> >> sh*t... :/ we need to get this fixed :( >> >> >> > I have no idea how. I tried a lot of things but none of them worked... > I got another idea I'm currently working on. If this works out, we should even be able to select between nptl and linuxthreads again. But no promises ! ;-) -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2004-10-16 11:24:49
|
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:49:45PM -0500, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > I got another idea I'm currently working on. > If this works out, we should even be able to select between nptl and > linuxthreads again. > > But no promises ! ;-) keep trying :) :) -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dtorres at anthalia dot org - Madrid / España |
|
From: Jeffrey P. B. <jp...@la...> - 2004-10-01 23:24:28
|
Hello, In my quest for a smaller, leaner and customizable version of a Linux distribution, I've been evaluating devil-linux. So far I'm happy, with the following exception: I've recently downloaded and installed the 1.2RC and been trying to get a personalized subset version up and working using the tools. I've been able to compile and setup everything I needed (Under Suse 9.1 Pro w/LFS from the ftp site). I want to be able use GCC/G++ development off the bootable CDROM. When I select the option to include GCC, I get the compiler and all of the required libraries, but the /usr/include directory is basically empty of all the files needed for development. Is there an option to enable the include directory into the ISO or do I have to do some hacking to the build system? -Jeff Bakke Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Diego Torres wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:35:21PM -0400, Heiko Zuerker wrote: >> >> >> >>> If I don't do this, we need to have 2 different lfssystems for 1.3 >>> and the build system itself will get quite a bit more complicated..... >>> >>> Anybody got a major problem with that? >>> >> >> >> i'm not against moving dl to 2.6, but i don't like that the build system >> has also to be 2.6... mainly because i'm not using it... >> >> >> > Actually it should work now with a 2.4 host. I updated the lfssystem on > the server. > >> how complicated is complicated? :) >> >> > A lot. > |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-10-02 00:48:16
|
It seems like the only reason for optionally including the compiler was for using "distcc". And it also seems like Heiko was talking about removing that option all together. I'm sure Heiko can provide more insight when he gets back. He's currently offline for a few days. - BS > In my quest for a smaller, leaner and customizable version of a Linux > distribution, I've been evaluating devil-linux. So far I'm happy, with > the following exception: > > I've recently downloaded and installed the 1.2RC and been trying to get > a personalized subset version up and working using the tools. I've been > able to compile and setup everything I needed (Under Suse 9.1 Pro w/LFS > from the ftp site). I want to be able use GCC/G++ development off the > bootable CDROM. When I select the option to include GCC, I get the > compiler and all of the required libraries, but the /usr/include > directory is basically empty of all the files needed for development. > > Is there an option to enable the include directory into the ISO or do I > have to do some hacking to the build system? > > -Jeff Bakke |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-10-03 22:00:43
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >It seems like the only reason for optionally including the compiler was >for using "distcc". And it also seems like Heiko was talking about >removing that option all together. > >I'm sure Heiko can provide more insight when he gets back. He's >currently offline for a few days. > > Yes it will require some major changes to the build system. All the scripts remove the include and some of the library files to conserve space on the media. Run a grep include scripts/* and you'll see this is done in almost all scripts. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org |
