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: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:34:14 -0800
Quoting Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>:
> A good reason not to set up glibc to do this now is that 2.6 kernels don't
> work ... haha just kidding.
> AFAIK the intention is to ASK(firmly) if the user wants to copy the current
> kernel headers to /usr/include during glibc CONFIGURE so I guess a warning
> for 2.6.0 would be in order and those living on the cutting edge will have
> to
>
> manually manage their symlinks until kernel and userspace developers come to
>
> some arrangement.
> just double checking, is it only these three symlink destinations or have I
> missed something ?
> /usr/include/asm -> ../src/linux/include/asm-i386
> /usr/include/asm-generic -> ../src/linux/include/asm-generic
> /usr/include/linux -> ../src/linux/include/linux
>
> and specifically what files should be checked for, modversions.h and
> autoconf.h ? any others ? It would be a shame to copy unconfigured headers
> somehow so those *generated* files should be checked for too.
>
> Hamish
May want to check `uname -m` to configure the first symlink, otherwise it
won't
work on other architectures (PPC and SPARC coming soon to an ISO near you ;)).
E.g.
----
for ARCH in `uname -m`
case i686) ASM_LINK=i386
;;
case sparc64) ASM_LINK=sparc
;;
case sparc) ASM_LINK=sparc64
...
*) ASM_LINK=i386
;;
esac
ln -sf /usr/include/asm ../src/linux/include/asm-${ASM_LINK}
----
Or some such.
-sandalle
--
PGP Key Fingerprint: FCFF 26A1 BE21 08F4 BB91 FAED 1D7B 7D74 A8EF DD61
http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA8EFDD61
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/IT$ d-- s++:+>: a-- C++(+++) BL++++VIS>$ P+(++) L+++ E-(---) W++ N+@ o?
K? w++++>-- O M-@ V-- PS+(+++) PE(-) Y++(+) PGP++(+) t+() 5++ X(+) R+(++)
tv(--)b++(+++) DI+@ D++(+++) G>+++ e>+++ h---(++) r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells
, (continued)
-
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,
Eric Sandall, 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, Eric Sandall, 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,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Robin Cook, 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, 11/26/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/26/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/26/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Hamish Greig, 11/26/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Eric Sandall, 11/26/2003
-
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
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/25/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.