Hi all,
I recently searched in the Gentoo repository
for that stuff. Looks nice.
Why dont we adopt this to our needs?
regards
Bernd
BTW: Patch attached
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Best Regards
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Bernd Feldmeier
Embedded Software/BIOS development
Kontron Embedded Computers G
Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
Can someone tell me where
to get these like gentoo ones etc ...
These were pointed to by Tushar Teredesai within the last couple of
weeks in one of the kernel header threads on this very list. The
archives will have the info you're looking for.
BTW: why not to work
Hi all,
I am looking for some scripts for
kernel header sanitization to
examine other approaches.
Can someone tell me where
to get these like gentoo ones etc ...
BTW: why not to work together with
e.g. gentoo group?
Makes no sense to me that
every party makes its one way
for this not easy st
On Don, 2006-03-16 at 00:41 +0100, Jörg W Mittag wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
> > Some type of userspace setup is planned for 2.7, just no details at this
> > time.
>
> Could you give some more specifics on that? I, too, remeber that
> there was indeed something planned for 2.7, but that was waaa
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Some type of userspace setup is planned for 2.7, just no details at this
> time.
Could you give some more specifics on that? I, too, remeber that
there was indeed something planned for 2.7, but that was waaay back
when there was gonna *be* a 2.7. Now we know that there won'
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, J�rg Billeter wrote:
I've now built about 550 packages on x86 and on x86_64 with my generated
header set and besides the few problems already mentioned before I've
got only two additional problems in the last 300 packages (one needed
header was missing and I had to add --wit
On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 21:06 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger Blake wrote:
>
> > Although the script might be a good *short term* plan I think an adequate
> > long term solution requires a complete evaluation of *each* header -
> > identifying what code to delete or include.
On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 20:02 +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Unfortunately, as Jurg points out earlier in this thread, there are
> plenty of headers that are missing those guards and I'm not entirely
> sure that such guards are a complete solution (if they were I don't
> think all the hairy looki
Some type of userspace setup is planned for 2.7, just no details at this
time.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the abo
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger Blake wrote:
Although the script might be a good *short term* plan I think an adequate
long term solution requires a complete evaluation of *each* header -
identifying what code to delete or include. From what I can see the majority
of these headers are NOT required
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
My thought of the logic:
content of mykernelheader.h:
<...>
/* BEGIN USERSPACE HEADER */
...
...some header important for userspace...
...
/* END USERSPACE HEADER */
<...>
If think that's essentially what the #ifdef __KERNEL__ guards do in
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 19:36, Roger Blake wrote:
> >Having done some research on this, Jim's script (with all the help he's
> >been getting on the lists and IRC) looks like the best bet. It's also
> >the 'Right Way Forward' (tm), as it will deal with the increasing
> >complexity of the Lin
>Having done some research on this, Jim's script (with all the help he's
>been getting on the lists and IRC) looks like the best bet. It's also
>the 'Right Way Forward' (tm), as it will deal with the increasing
>complexity of the Linux kernel. The trick will be making it work for
>all the arches
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
>> Well, that's that then.
>
> Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on.
>
> My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting
> the santizing script into a state suitable for review on LKML
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
Well, that's that then.
Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on.
My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting
the santizing script into a state suitable for review on LKML and have
it added to the kernel t
Well, that's that then.
Over to you Jim, mate.
R.
--
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP
http://www.langside.org.uk PGP fingerprint:
D682 49A5 7050 E781 229C A2F0 DE1F C040 DE78 53E8
--- Begin Message ---
LLH hasn't seen a new release for a lot more than six months now and up until
today I hoped to g
kevin lyda wrote:
I've searched the mailing lists for LFS and don't see it any mention of
this issue. Is anyone researching this? Can I help?
It was brought up within the last couple of months on this list. The
linux-libc-headers maintainer is having some issues with his hard
On 2/15/06, kevin lyda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've read the instructions in Chapter 5 on how to install it. However I
> now want to install Linux 2.6.15 and there is no corresponding
> linux-libc-headers tarball. In fact the oldest one is for Linux 2.6.12
> from
OK, I've read why I should use the linux libc headers project:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/faq/2004-July/000159.html
I've read the instructions in Chapter 5 on how to install it. However I
now want to install Linux 2.6.15 and there is no corresponding
linux-libc-heade
Gottfried Haider wrote:
Yes, this is the only relevant difference between 2.6.12.0 and svn.
so there is no problem adding a file to /usr/include/linux after the
system has been build (and glibc has been linked against it), if I
understand you correctly?
This applies only to this particula
On Son, 2005-12-25 at 17:22 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Gottfried Haider wrote:
>
> >I've successfully build a LFS system following svn - thus
> >Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 are in place - but I use kernel 2.6.15-rc6.
> >
> >I think I'll have som
> Yes, this is the only relevant difference between 2.6.12.0 and svn.
so there is no problem adding a file to /usr/include/linux after the
system has been build (and glibc has been linked against it), if I
understand you correctly?
thanks|happy holidays
Gottfried Haider
--
http://linuxfromscratch
Gottfried Haider wrote:
Hello list,
I've successfully build a LFS system following svn - thus
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 are in place - but I use kernel 2.6.15-rc6.
I think I'll have some use for inotify in the future (running an IMAP
server).. so can I simply copy inotif.h (from
Hello list,
I've successfully build a LFS system following svn - thus
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 are in place - but I use kernel 2.6.15-rc6.
I think I'll have some use for inotify in the future (running an IMAP
server).. so can I simply copy inotif.h (from Linux-Libc-Headers-svn
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
> a) dependency of kernel version and linux-libc-header version
None whatsoever. These are two different packages, with two different
reasons for existing.
l-l-h is based on the kernel headers, but you can use any version of
either of them (well, no, that isn't quite right
Hi guys,
nice discussion about that very important stuff.
I began this discussion earlier ...
So maybe someone could clarify this stuff clearly ...
a) dependency of kernel version and linux-libc-header version
b) problems occuring
c) real meaning of sanatized headers (why ...)
d) creating our o
On 12/1/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> > As a follow up to this comment, beagle also uses inotify. I built it
> > with l-l-h-2.6.12.0, and it works fine now that I've upgraded my
> > kernel to 2.6.14. How? beagle (appropriately) includes inotify.h in
>
On 11/30/05, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
> inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
>
Once last thing: apparently the not finding is an
issue for dovecot. Read here:
http://www.dovecot.org/list/d
Dan Nicholson wrote:
As a follow up to this comment, beagle also uses inotify. I built it
with l-l-h-2.6.12.0, and it works fine now that I've upgraded my
kernel to 2.6.14. How? beagle (appropriately) includes inotify.h in
it's source tree.
Just as a point of interest, what happens if one c
On 12/1/05, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/1/05, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would like it to use inotify, but it doesn't because the headers are
> > too old. I never really understood why most (all?) distributors choose
> > to use kernel headers that doesn't
he kernel headers of your running kernel,
this has been hashed out MANY times. Once more though...
When you install glibc, it is built against a static headers package
(linux-libc-headers or you could pull the headers from a kernel source
tree, but they're not sanitized). After you instal
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
And what is your experience with this ?
Do you find that inotify works/is picked up by dovecot ? or do
Matt Darcy wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
> > inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
> >
>
> And what is your experience with this ?
>
> Do you find that inotify works/is picked up by dovecot ? or do you
> f
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello guys,
I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers versi
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> > But is there a problem if I use
> > the latest kernel version ?
>
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi to all,
sorry but as I know this release is bug fix release,
but this stuff has nothing to do with the
of any glibc/kernel stable versions. I think we should
upgrade to these stable versions before releasing ...
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
kernel 2.6.14.x + glibc 2.3.5 ...
Like I said before,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/ has those upgrades
already in place, except for linux-2.6.14.3, which should make it in
some time this w
Hi to all,
sorry but as I know this release is bug fix release,
but this stuff has nothing to do with the
of any glibc/kernel stable versions. I think we should
upgrade to these stable versions before releasing ...
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
kernel 2.6.14.x + glibc
Matthew Burgess wrote:
If you'd have been following the list since the time when we decided on
making a LFS-6.1.1 release, you'd have known that its only goal was to
fix the known bugs with LFS-6.1
Oh yeah, and LFS-6.1.1 was planned to be achieved under a very short
release schedule, due to
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi,
maybe you can tell me why we don't include this versions in LFS 6.1.1
like Greg do it??
If you'd have been following the list since the time when we decided on
making a LFS-6.1.1 release, you'd have known that its only goal was to
fix the known bugs with LFS-6.1
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi,
maybe you can tell me why we don't include this versions in LFS 6.1.1
like Greg do it??
They are stable and so there should not be any problems??
PS: I think we are too conservative about that.
Please tell me ...
regards
--http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/lis
Hi,
maybe you can tell me why we don't include this versions in LFS 6.1.1
like Greg do it??
They are stable and so there should not be any problems??
PS: I think we are too conservative about that.
Please tell me ...
regards
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: htt
On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello guys,
>
> I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> But is there a problem if I use
> the latest kernel version ?
>
> Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
> and latest kernel version differs?
It&
Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and latest kernel version differs?
No, there aren't any problems that *I* know of, and a recent discussion
on this list suggests that others haven't had an
Hello guys,
I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and latest kernel version differs?
regards Bernd
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
On 11/23/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know a couple of you were on the CC that Mariusz just sent out, but
> here's the little snippet for anyone else that's interested:
>
> "I'm aiming at releasing 2.6.14 during the first weekend of December and
> assuming nothing more importa
I know a couple of you were on the CC that Mariusz just sent out, but
here's the little snippet for anyone else that's interested:
"I'm aiming at releasing 2.6.14 during the first weekend of December and
assuming nothing more important comes up, you can count on that date."
Regards,
Matt.
--
On 11/10/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/10/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that the linux-libc-headers package isn't being updated as
> > > frequently as it on
On 11/10/05, Thomas Pegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> >> Does someone have an idea on what the source based distros are using?
> >
> >
> > Gentoo appears to be using their own, I think -
> > http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?linux-headers-2
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Does someone have an idea on what the source based distros are using?
Gentoo appears to be using their own, I think -
http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?linux-headers-2.6.11-r2. I can't
see any links to the actual tarball though that would e
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Does someone have an idea on what the source based distros are using?
Gentoo appears to be using their own, I think -
http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?linux-headers-2.6.11-r2. I can't
see any links to the actual tarball though that would enable a full
comparison,
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:48, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Does someone have an idea on what the source based distros are using?
Gentoo uses 2.6.11-r2 (as of lkast weekend).
--
Mid-Twenties Breakdown:
A period of mental collapse occurring in one's twenties,
often caused by an inability
's what we've been using in trunk for a while now.
>
> http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers-2.6.12.0.tar.bz2
Grr, how did I miss that!
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://
On 11/10/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > It seems that the linux-libc-headers package isn't being updated as
> > frequently as it once was.
>
> I thought that too, and also found the svnweb interface that Tush linke
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
It seems that the linux-libc-headers package isn't being updated as
frequently as it once was.
I thought that too, and also found the svnweb interface that Tush linked
to. Now, whether they actually release something based on 2.6.14
remains to be seen - maybe so
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 11/10/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems that the linux-libc-headers package isn't being updated as
frequently as it once was. Two questions:
1) I realize it may not be absolutely necessary to have matching
linux-libc-headers and kern
On 11/10/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It seems that the linux-libc-headers package isn't being updated as
> frequently as it once was. Two questions:
>
> 1) I realize it may not be absolutely necessary to have matching
> linux-libc-headers and ker
Hello,
It seems that the linux-libc-headers package isn't being updated as
frequently as it once was. Two questions:
1) I realize it may not be absolutely necessary to have matching
linux-libc-headers and kernel versions, but wouldn't it be more
advantageous to have up-to-date
Duncan Webb wrote:
So the cleanest thing would be to do as the FAQ says and empty
linux/config.h.
Nope, the cleanest thing to do is to fix user space applications that
are broken in their thinking that including a kernel space header is a
Good Idea (which it isn't, as is explained in the llh
Andrew Benton wrote:
Tobias Lieber wrote:
I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
#error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for
linux-li
Tobias Lieber wrote:
I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
#error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for linux-libc-headers
package.&quo
> I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
> Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
>
> I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
> #error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for linux-libc-headers
> packa
I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
#error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for linux-libc-headers
package."
#error "(c
Matthew Burgess wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In future please check bugzilla before reporting new
> versions of packages.
Will do
--
Regards
Alex
The email address above is a spamtrap.
alex@ the same domain will reach me
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://w
Alex Potter wrote:
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] linux-libc-headers 2.6.11.1
Thanks Alex. In future please check bugzilla before reporting new
versions of packages.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] linux-libc-headers 2.6.11.1
Date: Friday 25 Mar 2005 21:58
From: Mariusz Mazur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Available at http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/
Changes:
- small (but imp
Andrew Benton wrote:
Something like this?
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support/2005-March/054018.html
Yep, thanks. If someone could keep me posted on Mariusz' response to
this I'll make sure LFS addresses it as soon as possible.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Michael Labuschke wrote:
(sorry for the short info about the issue.
I wrote mazur a mail. Explaining everthing but haven't got an answer yet)
Please either link to the email you posted (assuming it was to a mailing
list), or explain what the build errors were you encountere
Michael Labuschke wrote:
(sorry for the short info about the issue.
I wrote mazur a mail. Explaining everthing but haven't got an answer yet)
Please either link to the email you posted (assuming it was to a mailing
list), or explain what the build errors were you encountered, and how we
can dupli
The new linux--libc-header files miss the new struct thing
The kernel files have them right
This patch fixes the buildprob.
http://pastebin.linuxfromscratch.org/?show=816
(sorry for the short info about the issue.
I wrote mazur a mail. Explaining everthing but haven't got an answer yet)
But since
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] linux-libc-headers 2.6.11.0
Date: Sunday 13 Mar 2005 22:29
From: Mariusz Mazur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Available at http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/
Changes:
- updated to
71 matches
Mail list logo
