Re: [gentoo-user] XMMS: Bye, Bye Gentoo
There are plenty of packages within portage which have no longer been maintained for just as long as xmms (see cgoban for an example). It seems that this is a rather silly choice of packages to single out. It seems to me that xmms can live a perfectly natural life within portage so long as it is no longer included by default with the Xorg package. Granted, I have absolutely zero sway with anyone who matters within the gentoo community, but personally I would prefer to see it remain. --mike *crosses fingers that cgoban remains, even though it is no longer under development.* On 12/1/06, Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Dibb wrote: XMMS was dropped since it had many bugs, dead upstream, and no maintainer. Essentially it was becoming a real drain on Gentoo developers time and patience and so the hard decision was made to let it go. The whole shebang is covered in quite a bit in the forums. Steve Thank you! This is the info I was looking for. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] kernel compilation problem [panic: not syncing VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknows-block(0,0)
Also, be sure to have support for pc bios partition tables (in some kernel releases, it's not a default selection, and I believe the error is the same because the kernel can't tell which device is sda3, or whatever partition you're using. On 6/26/06, fei huang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/26/06, Ezequiel Carmona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. sorry for my english. edit /boot/grub/grub.conf in line kernel /bzImage-2.6.15-r5 root=/dev/sda add -ro kernel /bzImage-2.6.15-r5 root=/dev/sda -ro you should specify a partition with the root parameter, e.g. /dev/sda1 this partition is where your '/' locates. cheers daniel 2006/6/25, Catalin Trifu [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I have just got a new machine with nForce4 chipset and 250GB SATA drive. I am trying to compile the kernel on the machine (gentoo-sources) and it works just fine but at boot time I get the panic in the subject and I don't get it why. I have compiled sata_nv directly in the kernel. I'm not using any raid or such things. I also installed the kernel + initrd from the 2006.0 live cd and that kernel boots just fine. Thanks, Catalin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Ezequiel Carmona T. Gentoo AMD64 nForce4 GNU/Linux user #395098 http://counter.li.org/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 2GB of RAM
Yea, What architecture are you running on? Is it possible that you have some kind of memory interleaving option turned on in your bios that isn't working right because of slight timing differences in the manufacturing of each stick of ram? Are they exactly the same spec (CAS,NS, etc..)? What's the processor? On 6/20/06, Justin R Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:01:26AM -0700, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: What are the names of the config options that change the memory split? I'm running gentoo-sources-2.6.17, and for the life of me, I can't find any config option that deal with memory (and I know they existed: I've set them before.) Are you running a 64 bit kernel? I believe 64 bit architectures don't have this memory limit so low. I can't find it in my kernel config either. Justin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] 64bit vs 32bit
My understanding is that the major advantage of the 64-bit processors is for memory address space (4Gigs of virtual memory space without PAE, technically 48 bits of address space, which is something like 128Terrabytes of addressable memory). There must be some advantage associated with being able to hold two long ints in one register (or some such relationship there). Anyone know detailed explanations for situations where 64-bit is more/less beneficial and why? --Mike On 6/19/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 19 June 2006 20:26, kashani wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: you don't need a chroot. Just emerge firefox-bin for flash and mplayer-bin for wmv files. Everything else does not make problems. Depending on the video files you'd like to decode 32bit can make a difference. Many of the stranger codecs are supported through the win32 codecs which are not 64bit safe or at least that's what I've read. I'd assume that qt, mp4, and wmv would generally be okay. and this 'strange' codecs are covered by mplayer-bin too. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] grub + pxeboot
Awesome tidbit, I'll be sure to file that one away. Also, if you're configuring for a netboot, the definitive place to look is in the kernel tree itself. I would especially recommend Documentation/initrd.txt, which is great for netbooting something that's not going to be a diskless thinclient. Regardless, that should tell you everything you need to know, or where to look for the few pieces you're missing. --Mike On 6/13/06, YoYo Siska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Huber wrote: There was a really good guide on how to do this (at least, from the point of view of booting an nfs-mounted root directory) in the alternate installation guide. I'm pretty sure that you have to compile grub with the --enable-diskless option. I'm not really sure how to do that easily within portage, but I'm sure someone will chime in with an appropiate answer. The netboot use flag seems to be the right thing ;) it seems that it enables other things beside --enable-diskless that look like network drivers/whatever.. (never tried it) BTW if you want to pass something to ./configure in an emerge, just use EXTRA_ECONF=--enable-diskless emerge -av grub But I don't know if it can be set pernamently for that package in some file in /etc/portage/ On 6/2/06, *Enrico Weigelt* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, I'd like to let grub boot an PXE bootloader, so I've got the option to boot from network instead of local disk. How can I do this ? Currently I'm using an PXE bootdisk to boot from network, but this is not satisfying. YoYo -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
oh, there is one thing where it is useful to have modules. That would be projects where the codebase will be updated more often than you update your kernels (I'm looking at you ALSA). In those circumstances it may be more valuable to have the flexibility to update code without having to reboot (or kexec). On 6/12/06, Mike Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, all mileage may vary. Personally, I prefer to not have things loaded into the kernel when I'm not using them. It's not really a performance or a memory saving thing, but more of an OCD thing. I'm sure that, in the grand scheme of things, the little time/power/whatever I save by keeping them out of the kernel is far outweighed by the amount of time it takes to type modprobe x when i remember I need to load the thing. Afterall, my time at the command prompt is significantly more valuable than a few extra cycles, or an extra 70-500K memory footprint. The thing is, it really depends on how clean you keep your kernel config. If you seriously go through the kernel config an make sure that you only select the things which are appropriate for your system, then you're fine. I've known people who just have almost everything built as a module, and let kernel autoloading take care of figuring out which one they need for their system (yes, terribly stupid and inelegant, but it does solve the problem when you don't know how else to do it). Also, compiling a whole tree of modules can be a simple way of figuring out exactly which set of code corresponds to your chipset, but that is not relevant to the current discussion. Basically, I'd say that if it doesn't matter how the thing is loaded into the kernel (I.E., no outside code relies on it being a module), and if it's going to be loaded more than some threshold percentage of time, just build it in. Unless you are facing some weird constraints, anything resembling modern hardware can handle the slightly larger kernel, and if you are facing those constraints, you probably already know what you're doing much better than I'll ever be able to say. As a side question for the list, when you load a module, you can pass module options to it (at least, last I checked, this could be done to specify things like the name of the interface on an internet driver, debugging level, etc...). When you build something into the kernel, is there an easy way to pass such options off to it? boot time options? anyone know? --Mike On 6/12/06, Steven Susbauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Anthony E. Caudel wrote: I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel modules. Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up. Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones. I generally like to load them at boot-up. One reason is that I have heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be unloaded. On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times. So, what do gentoo-users think? Tony I have never used any modules that I didn't have to. At this point, I use none. They are all compiled into the kernel, because I don't have a point to unloading or loading. The only point for modules in any of my experience is if you're often changing hardware (possibly a laptop with a base station... or something?) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load
Yea, of course you can do that, though you have to be careful if your kernel tree has changed to a different version than the one you're booted from (usually you can still just force the module to load, but a module from a different kernel tree may not want to play nicely with everything else). On 6/12/06, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Weyershäuser wrote: I usualy start with a kernel with almost everything compiled in (but only things I definitely need), only using modules when I have to (USB for suspend2 comes to my mind). Over time whenever I need something new (filesystem, hardware driver,...) I tend to compile it as a module to avoid a reboot. As I do not upgrade my kernel very often this happens more often than you might think (last upgrade was from 2.6.11 to 2.6.16, on my laptop from 2.6.10 to 2.6.16). I don't really care about the 300k more used memory (hardly worth a thought on systems with 1 GB RAM and more) or the 0.3 seconds faster boot process. Modules just come in handy when it comes to avoiding a reboot. OK, this seems to confirm something I had suspected but never investigated: - that you can compile just a module without the need to recompile and install a revised kernel. This is possible? How? make modules_install or the whole thing: make make modules_install then just modprobe the new module? Tony -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
I had some weird problems with the emerge -e system (libraries not being properly identified to ./config scripts, that blocking issue with pam.d shadow, usual unstable tree stuff), but after toying with it for a few hours, I have a successfully running desktop. On 6/7/06, Roy Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mohammed Hagag wrote: i just want to know if any one here have built a full desktop with gcc-4.1.1 without problems ? i have some problems with xf86 video drivers and some other ebuilds. i did a bootstartp from normal stage3 and i'm doing emerge -e world now but some important packages did not compile most of the with errors about glibc include files. any one here know any thing about these problems ?? I did: emerge -s emerge -e revdep-rebuild You might want to read: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=282474highlight= which basically recommends: emerge -s emerge -s emerge -e emerge -e to make sure the toolchain is built correctly. HTH, Roy -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] grub + pxeboot
There was a really good guide on how to do this (at least, from the point of view of booting an nfs-mounted root directory) in the alternate installation guide. I'm pretty sure that you have to compile grub with the --enable-diskless option. I'm not really sure how to do that easily within portage, but I'm sure someone will chime in with an appropiate answer. Obviously PXE-booting requires a machine with a modern enough BIOS to support it. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/altinstall.xml--MikeOn 6/2/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi folks, I'd like to let grub boot an PXE bootloader, so I've got theoption to boot from network instead of local disk.How can I do this ?Currently I'm using an PXE bootdisk to boot from network, butthis is not satisfying. thx--- Enrico Weigelt== metux IT servicephone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]cellphone: +49 174 7066481- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Weird WinCE Stuff
Anyone know what the most appropriate way to modify settings on a WinCE handheld via scripting? I really only need to modify wireless settings (SSID, WEP), home page, and startup programs. I have pcr working on the things, but am unfortunately so unfamiliar with administration on a windows platform that I don't know where to start. --Mike
[gentoo-user] Getting BC not to truncate at the decimal point?
Hi, I'm just trying to do some quick calculations using bc, but the version installed through portage truncates on multiplication/division.It didn't used to do this 2 years ago when I was taking number theory, and there are no USE flags available for sys-devel/bc to change this.From the manpage: -The most basic element in bc is the number.Numbers are arbitrary precision numbers.This precision is both in theintegerpartandthe fractional part.All numbers are represented internally in decimal and all computation is done in decimal.( Thisversiontruncatesresults from divide and multiply operations.)There are two attributes of numbers, the length and the scale.The length is the total number of significantdecimaldigits in a number and the scale is the total number of decimal digits after the decimal point.For example: .01 has a length of 6 and scale of 6. 1935.000 has a length of 7 and a scale of 3.Anyone have any ideas? --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Getting BC not to truncate at the decimal point?
duh, sorry, case of me not fully reading the manpage. I'll be sure and fully read before I send to the list. Thanks a lot,--MikeOn 5/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you tryscale=nWhere n is the number of digits after the decimal?More in man bc. From: Mike Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/05/24 Wed PM 12:48:29 EDT To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] Getting BC not to truncate at the decimal point? Hi,I'm just trying to do some quick calculations using bc, but the version installed through portage truncates on multiplication/division.It didn't used to do this 2 years ago when I was taking number theory, and there are no USE flags available for sys-devel/bc to change this.From the manpage: - The most basic element in bc is the number.Numbers are arbitrary precision numbers.This precision is both in theintegerpartandthe fractional part.All numbers are represented internally in decimal and all computation is done in decimal.(Thisversiontruncatesresults from divide and multiply operations.)There are two attributes of numbers, the length and the scale.The length is the total number of significantdecimaldigits in a number and the scale is the total number of decimal digits after the decimal point.For example:.01 has a length of 6 and scale of 6.1935.000 has a length of 7 and a scale of 3. Anyone have any ideas? --Mike--gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
