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: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] 2.6.0-test10 sorcery rebuild -> 51 failed spells
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:16:42 +0100
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:05:02PM +1100, Hamish Greig wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:38, Robin Cook wrote:
> > 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
>
> it is a smaller percentage that fails to compile with 2.6 ? most are ok ?
> perhaps the easiest thing is to copy all thes dirs/files then run a script
> when needed that uses mount --bind to *hide* the 2.6 files with ones from
> the /usr/src/linux-2.4.XX tree ?
> would that be acceptable ?
> so the glibc query would default to yes, (please copy configured kernel
> headers to /usr/include) maybe after a successful cast, then you need only
> run mount --bind a few times when needed, or is the /lib/modules/$uname
> - -r/build link also a problem ?
> Hamish
/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build shouldn't be a problem, as that's only for
the use of kernel modules. rivatv fails because of it, but that's what
it should do, as the module won't work with 2.6 kernels yet.
--
Arwed v. Merkatz
Grimoire Guru for video
Grimoire Guru for xfce
Sourcemage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
-
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, 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,
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, Robin Cook, 11/27/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.