sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells
- From: Mads Laursen <dossen+sgl AT daimi.au.dk>
- To: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:58:07 +0100
On 25/11/03 18.41, Michael Taylor wrote:
> Ugh. I just changed to 2.6-test to give it a try, but this is not
> encouraging. It looks like several spells failed because of missing kernel
> headers and all their dependants fell with them. Did I miss a step here, or
> is there really so much fixing that needs done for 2.6?
I've been running 2.6 for a while, and yes there are a lot of packages
that rely on kernel headers to compile.
I've kept a 2.4 kernel around in order to compile it, but that is of
cause only a stopgap.
It's bound to get better once 2.6 goes "gold", but it will take time.
Somewhere (I'm not quite sure where) I read a guide, which recomended
installing sanitized kernel-headers into /usr/include/linux or
/usr/src/linux (can't remember the setup), and it does make some
sence, since /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/ contains kernel sources.
Another small thing that might be nice to support in the kernel spell
is /proc/config.gz. It's the .config of the running kernel. Could be
nice to be able to choose it, over the kernel.config that sorcery
keeps around (say you trashed a kernel and want to rebuild, starting
from a know good kernel (at least it got you far enough to compile)).
/dossen
Attachment:
pgpbljzNtwWHX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Michael Taylor, 11/25/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Mads Laursen, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
snakebyte / Eric Sesterhenn, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Eric Sandall, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
snakebyte / Eric Sesterhenn, 11/25/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.