Linux-Development-Sys Digest #559, Volume #6 Thu, 1 Apr 99 09:14:05 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.2.[2,3] cannot mount MO devices (Friedhelm Hinrichs)
Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC. (David M. Cook)
Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC. ("Bill Zimmerly")
Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC. ("Wesley W.
Garland")
Driver for special protocoll using the serial port!? (Frank Haverkamp)
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (David M. Cook)
HELP include files missing (Jacques Oosthuizen)
"playing MPEGs" or "problems with SMP kernel" (Peter Kharchenko)
Flash File System ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.2.[2,3] cannot mount MO devices (Igor Zlatkovic)
Re: Kernel build problem (Peter Samuelson)
Re: HELP include files missing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
polling an interface at 12 KHz ("Daniel Derksen")
Re: 4 Gb memory? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Patch-2.2.5 fails on linux-2.2.4 (Andreas Schwab)
Re: IRQ sharing with Linux 2.2.4 (Vassilis Virvilis)
Re: IRQ sharing with Linux 2.2.4 ("Bjorn Wesen")
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (Michael Powe)
Re: Outlook? (Igor Zlatkovic)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Friedhelm Hinrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.2.[2,3] cannot mount MO devices
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:32:26 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Dowling wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:29:27 +0000, Igor Zlatkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I use kernel 2.2.3 ontop of a Red Hat 5.2 (with all required updates, of course).
> >Mount did not complain and did use the device as long as it was formatted with FAT
> >(preformatted by the manufacturer). Trying to format it using mke2fs (direct format
> >on /dev/sdb, no partitions) results in a endless disk-access loop, keyboard does not
> >respond anymore and only hard reset helps.
>
> Did you remember to tell mke2fs that the blocksize is 2048? (Use the -b
> option.) Try creating a single ext2 partition on /dev/sdb1.
>
> >When I tried to make a single partition on it with fdisk, and specify exact amount
>of
> >blocks to mke2fs, it succeeded, but left me with about 101MB space on a 640 MB MO
> >medium.
>
> Not the number of blocks, but the *size* of the blocks.
>
Do *not* use partitions on 640 MB MO disks. I'm using the following
commands to
format and mount a MO disk (no partition numbers):
mke2fs -b 2048 -m 0 /dev/sdd
mount -t ext2 /dev/sdd /mo
On 230 MB MO disks or other media with 1KB sectors partitions do not
seem to cause
any problems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC.
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:51:55 GMT
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:55:26 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It was the 30 Mar 1999 00:17:17 GMT...
>..and Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[schnibble]
>> I dont hate vi or emacs, I love em both :))
>So do I! Peace, man!
I'm a vi/emacs agnostic. The fact the I use emacs is just an example of
symmetry breaking.
Dave Cook
--
No Linux for you!
------------------------------
From: "Bill Zimmerly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC.
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:34:25 -0600
There were *MANY* other programming environments that combined compiler,
editor, and debugger before Turbo Pascal.
None of them got the *INK* that TP got however. Why? I'll never know...
- Bill
Josh Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:IsvL2.151$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> NF Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>I've often wondered who came up with the first MS Windows style IDE, and
> >>why they thought it was better then vi|emacs/make/grep/ctags/etc...?
>
> >Integrated IDEs are a response to the limitations of DOS. If you
> >can only run one program at a time it makes sense for that program
> >to try to do everything.
>
> But give credit where credit is due - the original Borland Turbo Pascal
> was a major advancement in its day (early 1980s). It combined
> compiler, editor, and debugger in an efficient way that set a
> precedent.
>
> - Josh
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Wesley W. Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Programming tools for Linux/Unix: Editor, IDE, Frontend to GCC.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:33:33 -0500
Klaus;
>No, emacs is not capable of making coffee, that lie was invented by
>vi users.
It IS, however, capable of psycho-analyzing Zippy The Pinhead.
(meta-x psychoanalyze-pinhead)
Cheers,
Wes
--
Wesley W. Garland���������������� | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]���
Director, Product Development���� | Pager: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PageMail, Inc.������������������� |
Kingston, ON Canada�������������� | Voice: (888) 247 6246
------------------------------
From: Frank Haverkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.kernel,ibr.mailinglists.linux-kernel
Subject: Driver for special protocoll using the serial port!?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:18:45 +0200
Hi,
I want to write a serial port driver. The problem is, that
sending and receiving data works with a special unusual
hardware handshaking.
Protocoll is like this:
I have to pull down my RTS line to indicate sending,
wait the Receiver to pull its CTS line and after that
sending my first by and receiving an ack byte.
After receiving this ack byte I must release the
RTS line and wait for the receiver to release
its CTS line. The next byte is transmitted in the
same manner. The protocoll wants to transmit whole packets
and after each byte of the packet there should should only
3msec or less. If not, the receiver resets communication
and expects a new packet.
Receiving of a packet is similar ...
My problem is to integrate this protokoll in the system
of serial drivers in Linux. I probed a little bit arround
with a new line dicipline and had a look at serial.c,
tty.c, but I didn't really get to know wich concept lies
under this.
I presume the following. The tty driver is the base.
It initializes the UART and get hold of ports and interrupts.
Upon that is the serial driver which does the configuration
of the UART and the transmitting and receiving data.
The Layer between User and serial driver is probably the
line discipline??
If I want to integrate my protocoll how should I do this?
Try to write a driver like serial.c and registering it
using the tty_register... functions? Or creating a new
line discipline?
I want to have my interrupt handler and want to be able to
control my UART completely.
How can I achieve, that my new functions are
invoked if sombody tries to use /dev/ttyS*? Is there any
explanation of the elementary interface? If not does anybody
know how i could get help???
Many Thanks,
Frank Haverkamp
--
*** Frank Haverkamp
*** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~haver
*** TU-Braunschweig (IBR)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:49:31 GMT
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:59:26 -0500, Mark Weaver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Way back in the stone-age (e.g. the late 80's) I wrote DOS, OS/2, and Unix
>programs using character-based and command line tools (vi, emacs, make,
>etc--for DOS and OS/2 we had clones of unix utils).
Using these tools on DOS has *nothing* to do with the way they are used on a
unix machine.
>Sure, I could give up the
>power, convenience, and productivity of modern IDEs and go back to writing
>code the old way if I had to, but why would I or anyone else *want* to? It
I would probably not want to go back to the way you did it, either. I
prefer the way I do it.
>amuses me up to read Linux advocates suggesting that emacs and make are
>somehow the wave of the future in programming. I, too, was disappointed to
>see the relative scarcity of IDEs for linux.
If you plan to distribute your source, autoconf is the wave of the future,
at least for now. It won't make any sense without a knowledge of make.
I would not claim that emacs is ultramodern as I have no respect for
modernity, but it does provide a very functional and flexible development
environment. That's all I care about.
Dave Cook
--
No Linux for you!
------------------------------
From: Jacques Oosthuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: HELP include files missing
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:36:12 +0200
can anyone tell me in what package RPM is the stdio.h file. I have
cleaned up my system but have delete some files I should have.
------------------------------
From: Peter Kharchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: "playing MPEGs" or "problems with SMP kernel"
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 05:43:44 +0000
Hi,
I've ran into a weird problem when I put a second processor into my
system: When the kernel is running in SMP mode with two processors,
video players don't seem to work. All of them (mpeg_play, MpegTV, xanim)
are showing the same exact problem: they spit out a bunch of frames,
then freeze, then spit out some more and so on.
If I turn off the SMP option and recompile that same kernel, all works
fine. If I run an SMP kernel having just one processor in the system, it
all runs fine too. I have not noticed any other problems running the
system in SMP mode with two processors. I imagine this has something to
do with timings (and yes, I've tried to turn Enhanced Real Time Clock
option, it doesn't help).
I was wondering if anyone else was having a similar problem or has any
suggestions on how to fix this.
(my system is a dual PII-450, and I tried the following kernels: 2.2.5,
2.2.4 and 2.1.132 ... all giving the same results :( )
Thanks in advance for any suggestions,
-peter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Flash File System
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:17:33 GMT
Hello everybody,
I would like to work with NAND flash memories like a hard disk.
For this, i've to use a Flash File System on the flash NAND.
It will managed the wear of flash, the bad blocks, the garbage collection ...
So, my questions are :
Someone knows a Flash File System ?
Someone knows if it exist a Flash File System used on LINUX ?
Thanks for your help .
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Igor Zlatkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.2.[2,3] cannot mount MO devices
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:51:31 +0000
Friedhelm Hinrichs wrote:
> Do *not* use partitions on 640 MB MO disks. I'm using the following
> commands to
> format and mount a MO disk (no partition numbers):
>
> mke2fs -b 2048 -m 0 /dev/sdd
> mount -t ext2 /dev/sdd /mo
>
> On 230 MB MO disks or other media with 1KB sectors partitions do not
> seem to cause
> any problems.
I have tried both possibilities on 640 MB disks on the 2.2.1 kernel. With or without
partition, MO disk functions anyway. There is no capacity difference between
"partitioned"
and plain MO.
What kind of problems did you experience with partitioned MO? I mean MO with one
partition.
I never tried to make more than one, there was no need.
And further, does anyone know if it makes any difference when I want to make the MO
diskette bootable? I think that there should be no difference between MO with one
partition
and MO without partitions.
Igor
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: Kernel build problem
Date: 1 Apr 1999 04:57:34 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Ajit Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> your kernel is too big...use 'make bzImage' instead of 'make zImage'
> for better compression...everything else should be the same
Bzzzzt. Right advice, wrong reason. The bzImage format is *not*
"better compression" -- it uses `gzip' compression, same as zImage
format. The difference is that bzImage kernels load into extended
memory rather than real memory and thus aren't subject to the 640k
barrier. Some boot loaders impose other limits, i.e. 1.44MB floppy
size or 16MB BIOS memory calls. (Side note: HPA claims that syslinux
gets around the 16MB limit. Now, while avoiding arbitrary limits is a
Good Thing, I fail to see the point for a boot loader designed to run
off a floppy....)
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HELP include files missing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:38:40 GMT
Jacques Oosthuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can anyone tell me in what package RPM is the stdio.h file. I have
$ rpm -qf /usr/include/stdio.h
glibc-devel-2.0.7-29
You could use the rpm verify option to track this too
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Derksen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: polling an interface at 12 KHz
Date: 1 Apr 1999 12:30:49 GMT
Hello,
I have to devellop an application which polls a hardware-interface at 12
KHz and I was thinking about develloping this application on Linux. I'm
not really into Linux yet so before I get into it, could someone give me an
indication on whether I have a chance of achieving this ?
thanks in advance!
kind regards,
Daniel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: 4 Gb memory?
Date: 1 Apr 1999 06:17:42 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Derek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Hmmm... why do memory addresses have to be signed? A 32-bit integer
> has a range of 4gigs, not 2.
As someone already noted, it's not "signed", it's just that Linux has
other uses for the address space besides physical memory.
> If there is already demand for 4gigs of RAM time is really running
> short for 32-bit architecture ;)
That's what Linus says: if you really need more than 2G of RAM, you
really need more than a 32-bit processor. Alphas are not *that*
expensive anymore, and are well supported by Linux. Apparently the
36-bit PPro interface is ugly and Linus didn't want to support it at
all, but more recently (according to the always-helpful Kernel Traffic)
someone came up with an idea for how to do the interface in a somewhat
clean manner, and Linus tentatively approved, so a usable patch might
actually appear in a couple months.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Patch-2.2.5 fails on linux-2.2.4
Date: 01 Apr 1999 14:35:58 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson) writes:
|> [Mike Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
|> > Remember to
|> >
|> > # cd /usr/src
|> > # zcat patch-2.2.5.gz | patch -p0
|>
|> Inflexible and dangerous. What if /usr/src/linux is some other kernel
|> tree (or symlink), not the 2.2.4 one you want to patch? Also what if
|> whoever made your patch didn't see fit to call the destination dir
|> "linux"? Linus always does, but that doesn't mean he always will, and
|> many other kernel developers who release patches don't.
|>
|> A much safer habit to get into:
|>
|> $ cd /usr/src/linux-2.2.4 # or wherever your 2.2.4 tree is
|> $ gzip -cd ../patch-2.2.5.gz | patch -p1
Even better:
$ cd /usr/src
$ linux-whatever/scripts/patch-kernel linux-whatever
--
Andreas Schwab "And now for something
[EMAIL PROTECTED] completely different"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Vassilis Virvilis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IRQ sharing with Linux 2.2.4
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 01:59:30 +0300
Walter Hunt wrote:
>
> I have since disabled the Prug-n-Pray and re-arranged the cards,
> which resulted in the two cards getting different IRQs assigned, and
> currently the system seems to be working OK (been up a couple days).
> Mostly I'm just curious about whether Linux *should* have been able
> to handle the IRQ setup the BIOS came up with. Since I eventually
> want to add another ether card so the Linux box can do forwarding/
> masquerading for an internal LAN, this issue could easily come up
> again.
>
I don't really know if Linux can or should support shared interrupts, but
binding the same interrupt line in 2 distinct devices (not comm's) && one of
them is your hard disk, then IMO you are looking for troubles already.
.Bill
------------------------------
From: "Bjorn Wesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IRQ sharing with Linux 2.2.4
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:46:53 +0200
Vassilis Virvilis wrote in message
>I don't really know if Linux can or should support shared interrupts, but
>binding the same interrupt line in 2 distinct devices (not comm's) && one
of
>them is your hard disk, then IMO you are looking for troubles already.
Linux can share irq's, but as with all drivers (windows too) it's up to the
driver to check if it was actually "its" device that caused the irq or not.
If an irq is shared, all registred irq handlers will get called in turn and
only the right one should actually react.
I don't know to what extent the existing linux drivers do this.
/Bjorn
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
Date: 31 Mar 1999 21:33:25 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Triemstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> Mark Weaver wrote:
>> Way back in the stone-age (e.g. the late 80's) I wrote DOS,
>> OS/2, and Unix programs using character-based and command line
>> tools (vi, emacs, make, etc--for DOS and OS/2 we had clones of
>> unix utils). Sure, I could give up the power, convenience, and
>> productivity of modern IDEs and go back to writing code the old
>> way if I had to, but why would I or anyone else *want* to? It
>> amuses me up to read Linux advocates suggesting that emacs and
>> make are somehow the wave of the future in programming.
Tim> I agree :)
Tim> People that think using only GNU tools is somehow "right" or
Tim> "morally sound" are simply living in a world different from
Tim> most. Computers are tools, not moral or ethical decisions.
This is just corporate-speak. "I'll work for anyone if the price is
right -- I don't care what they want me to write." "The business of
business is business -- not making moral or ethical decisions." How
you use your computer is a moral decision; what software you put on it
and use is a moral decision. To say otherwise is just silly.
Tim> And as such, noone says "find a good rock, you can hammer in
Tim> a nail just fine and its free and natural! don't use that
Tim> damn, corporate hammer!" why do people act like this for
Tim> computer software? I'm a huge fan of free software. I think
Tim> if something doesn't provide unique value worth marketing, it
Tim> should be free, with nothing in between. But when I hear
Hah! As though emacs, linux, FreeBSD, sendmail, Apache &c &c offered
nothing "of unique value worth marketing."
Tim> Advocates would then say "Symantec is evil for making a
Tim> superior product and not making it free" or "it wouldn't be
Tim> so buggy if it was free." Both may be correct statements,
Tim> but the fact is that if I use Symantec's IDE I can put better
Tim> food on my table than if I use the command line and VI. We
Doubtful. If you are as smart as you claim you are, which tools you
use would make no difference in the amount of money you're paid for
your work. However, if you don't actually know the internal processes
that are masked by your IDE, you may well find yourself outgunned when
confronted with the need to do some such by hand.
Tim> live in a free market - without it we wouldn't have these
Tim> great computers that we use. If Oracle didn't SELL their
Tim> database all these years, they wouldn't have the money to
Tim> make a port to Linux and be able to afford a free web server
Tim> for you to download it from...
Tim> IDE's are just another tool that may or may not be better for
Tim> you. But people that say "don't use an IDE you wimp" and
Tim> then say "Emacs IS an IDE" don't really pay attention to
Tim> their own words, do they? If CodeWarrior doesn't compile
Tim> faster, provide a better make facility or a better editor, I
Tim> won't use it. If it does, why wouldn't I use it? I might go
Tim> to computer hell? :)
I didn't see anybody but you making the contradictory statements.
After all, you say that you "love free software" as long as it's not
particularly useful, but you prefer commercial software because you
think that commercial software is, by definition, "really useful"
software.
mp
- --
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
"Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write."
-- Anthony Trollope
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE3AwUP755rgEMD+T8RAhDAAJ9ZvUyTi8Qc8FN8tw/am8K5Y/pheQCeNeDi
RkeTFb0aR4Dbv+Gt6HBZyDc=
=LNdz
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Igor Zlatkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Outlook?
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:44:22 +0000
John Burton wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I'll take a look tomrrow when I get back to work
> but I fear that it might be microsoft mail.
Pity. Really pity.
> I think we have some sort of separate software which acts as a gateway
> to the internet for messages.
On MS Mail, you certainly do have something separate for handling internet mail.
Now, there is a way to translate your complete mailbox contents to something that
runs under Linux. How hard it is, depends on the mail client you choose under Linux.
But this is not what you need. I don�t know how you could read your mail from within
Linux using MS Mail actively. Without programming, there is no chance.
Programming... well there are two possibilities that smell like a good solution:
The easier one is to program a NT service that acts as a POP3 server and runs atop
of the MS Mail on the server. With this, you can read your mail with anything that
can connect to a POP3 server. There is a chance that you find a sample program that
does exactly this somewhere in MSDN. It is however questionable if your admin will
allow you to run something like that on the server.
The harder possibility is to write something like fetchmail for Linux. That would be
a program that connects to your NT server, reads mail there via MS Mail and delivers
it through local SMTP to the sendmail daemon that runs on your Linux box.
Hmmmmm..... there is a third possibility. Convince your admin to install and use an
Exchange Server. It can serve POP3 clients well and it is not a big pain to migrate
an MS Mail system to Exchange.
Cheers
Igor
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
