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: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
- To: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
- Cc: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:38:24 -0600
I have been running on the 2.6 kernels for a while now and my glibc is
compiled against the 2.6 kernel. So far there is no fix for this as I
have gone round and round with developers of several spells and always
comes down to you should be using the 2.4 headers. So I guess until the
2.6 kernel header become the standard and the programs get updated to
use them I'll just keep doing what I have been. As mentioned earlier is
I keep a 2.4 kernel around to change the /usr/src/linux link whenever I
encounter a spell that doesn't compile against the 2.6 kernels.
CuZnDragon
Robin Cook
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 20:25, Hamish Greig wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:52, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> > A note (unrelated to the compile problems caused by 2.6), this copying
> > of kernel headers to /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm[-generic]
> > should really happen as soon as possible. The symlinks are a historic
> > practice apparently from the libc4 days. You can find lots of flamewars
> > about this if you google a bit, but Linus says those should always be
> > the headers glibc was compiled against, lfs and debian do this already,
> > don't know about other distros.
> >
>
> 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
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/xA8k8fSufZR6424RAqudAKCBqrNsLx1QySJrXiPIIQuBrXIeGwCaA+BI
> DpcPcePiumstc/L2R6q2m1A=
> =qcDP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Grimoire mailing list
> SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
>
-
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,
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,
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,
Hamish Greig, 11/25/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells, Robin Cook, 11/27/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.