Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> With the udev_update branch nothing loads the uhci-hcd module.
>
> Thanks. Alexander, do you know if this is one of those problematic
> drivers that has since been fixed up in 2.6.16-rc4?
I doubt it; the kernel source for 2.6.15.3 has somethin
Andrew Benton wrote:
With the udev_update branch nothing loads the uhci-hcd module.
Thanks. Alexander, do you know if this is one of those problematic
drivers that has since been fixed up in 2.6.16-rc4?
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.
Richard A Downing wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*" MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe
${modalias}"
Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules
didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must
have a typo somewhere else.
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>> So, am I to gather from Matt and DJ that udevstart won't work
>> correctly from udev-084? Or just that it's not installed by default?
>
after I did "/etc/rc.d/init.d/udev start" in chroot I have ruined the host
system by some
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
The issue is that MODALIAS and ${modalias} are not supported in udev >
080. Please use ENV{MODALIAS} and $env{MODALIAS} instead.
Well, those rules work for me with udev-085. However, as they're now no
longer supported, I don't have any qualms with changing them t
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:14:58PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> There is another issue that may (or may not) need discussion. The
> procedures in chapters 6,7,8 are designed to be done in one sitting. If
> a user needs to power down somewhere in the middle of the process (think
> students in a
Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:46AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>>But not all possible devices. The minimum would be the device where
>>grub will be writing the MBR, usually hda or sda.
>
> I do not think it would be wise for us to attempt at guessing where the
> MBR will reside.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:46AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> But not all possible devices. The minimum would be the device where
> grub will be writing the MBR, usually hda or sda.
I do not think it would be wise for us to attempt at guessing where the
MBR will reside. As such, mount --bind
Archaic wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:46:41PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>>I believe (but could be wrong) that X can be built and installed without
>>any devices in /dev
>
>
> But any and all post-LFS package building is irrelevant in this context.
That is true.
> If one is to follow th
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:14:58AM -0500, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
>
> > But any and all post-LFS package building is irrelevant in this context.
>
> Not really, as bruce said he builds openssl/openssh in the chroot, I do
> also along with a whole system sometimes.
The key words were
Archaic wrote:
>If one is to follow the LFS book, one must have devices present prior to
>installing the MBR. That alone is reason to sort out this problem. We
>used mount --bind before. Perhaps it is time to bring it back.
>
>
I agree with that.
> But any and all post-LFS package building is i
Richard A Downing wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*" MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe
${modalias}"
Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules
didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must
have a typo somewhere else.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs udev patches, and they work fine, so
>> that's what I'm going with for now.
>
> I'm not familiar with these patches, and I can't seem to find them in
> the (x86 at least) cross-lfs book. Where are they?
>
> Seein
Richard A Downing wrote:
> I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs udev patches, and they work fine, so
> that's what I'm going with for now.
I'm not familiar with these patches, and I can't seem to find them in
the (x86 at least) cross-lfs book. Where are they?
Seeing the patches might help figure out
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*" MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe
> ${modalias}"
Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules
didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must
have a typo somewhere else.
I tried Jim Gifford's
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:46:41PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I believe (but could be wrong) that X can be built and installed without
> any devices in /dev
But any and all post-LFS package building is irrelevant in this context.
If one is to follow the LFS book, one must have devices present
Richard A Downing wrote:
> However, some people build, for instance X11, in the chroot (very
> tempted to let my spellchecker change this to cheroot :) environment,
> and they might need some of the device nodes. Joe's way might be best,
> however.
Sorry to be a bit late to this thread.
I belie
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'm still concerned that we won't load all modules correctly though;
> some of the distro rules load various SCSI modules dependent on the
> SYSFS{type} variable. I'd appreciate it if someone with the
> necessary hardware could test to see what does or doesn't work.
Oh
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
(The rule that we have has SUBSYSTEM=="usb", which will only load
modules for USB devices. This is wrong -- if the user builds a PCI
device's driver as a module, that module will never get loaded!
Yep. In my defence though, USB was the easiest subsystem for me to
test,
Richard A Downing wrote:
> I still can't see how to hotplug the usb printer though. Can someone
> tell me which rules in the lfs set are supposed to moad the usblp
> module, and it's module dependencies usbcore, ohci_hcd and ehci_hcd?
Here's what I understand happens: (If this is wrong, someone
Richard A Downing wrote:
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="usb", MODALIAS=="*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe "
This one is from udev-085/etc/udev/redhat/udev.rules, looks like it
might be worth a try
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*", MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe
$modalias"
I can't say whether
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> However since mine is a a non-branch SVN converted
>> to Udev (no hotplug) I may have missed something.
>
> One immediate thought. Did you update the rules file to follow what's
> in the udev branch? i.e. remove the callouts to run_udevd and
>
Dan Nicholson wrote:
So, am I to gather from Matt and DJ that udevstart won't work
correctly from udev-084? Or just that it's not installed by default?
It's not installed by default, basically because it's now deprecated.
Whilst compiling and installing it is an option available to us, I'd
On 2/18/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, some people build, for instance X11, in the chroot (very
> tempted to let my spellchecker change this to cheroot :) environment,
> and they might need some of the device nodes. Joe's way might be best,
> however.
Yeah, I was th
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage? Does
>> something we build later on actually require devices in there that we
>> haven't yet got available to us?
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Glad to hear some
Richard A Downing wrote:
As the branch stands I don't seem to have a working hotplug - that it
although udevd is running, no events get monitored by udevmonitor when a
USB device goes in.
Is udevd running as a daemon?
udevd --daemon
If it's running with the daemon option it should pick up hot
On 2/18/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Grub requires the nodes for your hard drive to install the mbr
Whoops, maybe I should read the whole thread before I reply. Thanks
for the cluebat, Joe.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom
On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage? Does
> something we build later on actually require devices in there that we
> haven't yet got available to us?
Hi Matt,
Glad to hear some news on the udev branch. Anyway,
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage?
Instead of populating /dev why not just bind /dev to $LFS/dev.
mount -o bind /dev $LFS/dev
> Does something we build later on actually require devices in there
> that we haven't yet got available to us?
Richard A Downing wrote:
However since mine is a a non-branch SVN converted
to Udev (no hotplug) I may have missed something.
One immediate thought. Did you update the rules file to follow what's
in the udev branch? i.e. remove the callouts to run_udevd and
run_hotplugd and add the callouts
Richard A Downing wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
The directories shm and pts are not created automagically in /dev
anymore. I just realized, however, that I have no idea how they had come
to exist before. Using 2.6.15.4 and udev-084. In the udev
instructions, add 'mkdir /lib/udev/devices/{shm,pts}' t
DJ Lucas wrote:
> The directories shm and pts are not created automagically in /dev
> anymore. I just realized, however, that I have no idea how they had come
> to exist before. Using 2.6.15.4 and udev-084. In the udev
> instructions, add 'mkdir /lib/udev/devices/{shm,pts}' to the first
> instruc
DJ Lucas wrote:
The directories shm and pts are not created automagically in /dev
anymore. I just realized, however, that I have no idea how they had come
to exist before. Using 2.6.15.4 and udev-084. In the udev
instructions, add 'mkdir /lib/udev/devices/{shm,pts}' to the first
instruction
The directories shm and pts are not created automagically in /dev
anymore. I just realized, however, that I have no idea how they had come
to exist before. Using 2.6.15.4 and udev-084. In the udev
instructions, add 'mkdir /lib/udev/devices/{shm,pts}' to the first
instruction block. Also, /sb
34 matches
Mail list logo
