Linux-Development-Sys Digest #727, Volume #7 Sun, 2 Apr 00 13:13:15 EDT
Contents:
How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("H. McKame")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Canon Extended Mode - Driver (Ulrich Eckhardt)
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux (Lee Webb)
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Zero padding in sprintf() doesn't work for strings - HELP ! (Diego Berge)
Linux 2.3.99-pre3 causes kernel panic in aha1542.c (Nigel Chan)
ATT: Pls help -Problems installing linux ("eliz154")
compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine (q_49@hot###mail.com)
Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine (q_49@hot###mail.com)
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux (Rod Roark)
Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: 2.3.99-4-2: Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on .... ("J. C.")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux (David T. Blake)
Re: 2.3.99-4-2: Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on .... (Markus Kossmann)
Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine (q_49@hot###mail.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "H. McKame" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 11:34:00 +0200
Hi
My company is currently finishing its product on Red Hat 6.1.
Given the multiplicity of Linux versions, we are worried about
distributing our product on Linux in general.
You out there that have already gone this route, could you please
share your experience:
- How compatible are Linux versions between vendors on the executable
format (a.out), and on the object format (.o) ? On what Linux versions
will a pre-link on RedHat 6.1 link and execute correctly ?
- How does one measure this compatibility (egcs version? glibc
version? xf86 version?)
- How general is the rpm packaging format for the release?
Our thanks in advance for any answer
--
Harry McKame, Paris, France
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: 2 Apr 2000 09:50:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps H. McKame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hi
These questions are so naive that I wouldn't trust any programmer that
has to ask them. Who are you hiring, if anyone?
: My company is currently finishing its product on Red Hat 6.1.
: Given the multiplicity of Linux versions, we are worried about
: distributing our product on Linux in general.
: You out there that have already gone this route, could you please
: share your experience:
: - How compatible are Linux versions between vendors on the executable
: format (a.out), and on the object format (.o) ? On what Linux versions
: will a pre-link on RedHat 6.1 link and execute correctly ?
aout is not a format currently in use. ELF is the current executable
format. The object format is also ELF.
As to what a pre-link means, I think you had better define! The linux
distros are ALL binary compatible. The problem between distributions
is, by definition, different placements of configuration files,
different packaging formats and file system placement standards.
Different configuration policies, and so on.
If you mean you have statically linked your code, well, then you can't
have any linking problems so why do you ask? If you are using dynamic
linking, then list your dependencies! That's what package formats are
for.
: - How does one measure this compatibility (egcs version? glibc
: version? xf86 version?)
One goes and tries it. Have you considered testing your product before
releasing it?
: - How general is the rpm packaging format for the release?
It's used by redhat and SuSE. Note that you will, of course, have to
provide different rpm's for these two different target distributions.
But why would you care? Any package can be converted to any other
package format in an instant. The problem is what you have placed
inside, not the package format! Make a .tgz (for slackware) and a .deb
(for debian) as well.
: Our thanks in advance for any answer
I suggest you desist from distributing your binary and make available
the code, so that at least it can be corrected by people who will
be less ignorant! Carrying on as you seem to be doing will probably
only get you bad press. If you want detailed advice on particular
distros policies, contact the distro.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Ulrich Eckhardt <s1524293 (AT) rzbt.fh-hamburg.de>
Subject: Canon Extended Mode - Driver
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 19:05:12 +0200
Hi Folks!
I�m currently trying to figure out how to print using above protocol. Since
Canon has proven to be quite uncooperative I went to that DOS-with-a-GUI,
printed some samples to a file and started analyzing.
So far so good, the protocol isn�t that complicated it seems but the prob
at the moment is that I don�t have the foggiest what fonts to use:
They should be in a pixel-oriented format or convertable to such one - at
the moment I have just some handmade hexedit-chars.
The other thing I was wondering about is whether someone else started on
the same project - I�m not that eager to reinvent something already
present...;)
Any inspiration welcome, especially if someone has the docs for the above
protocol.
CU uli
PS: if this is OT, please point me to a better NG.
------------------------------
From: Lee Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 11:30:23 +0100
Had a bad day? ;-)
Lee.
--
Boycott Amazon: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.development.apps H. McKame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Hi
>
> These questions are so naive that I wouldn't trust any programmer that
> has to ask them. Who are you hiring, if anyone?
>
> : My company is currently finishing its product on Red Hat 6.1.
> : Given the multiplicity of Linux versions, we are worried about
> : distributing our product on Linux in general.
>
> : You out there that have already gone this route, could you please
> : share your experience:
>
> : - How compatible are Linux versions between vendors on the executable
> : format (a.out), and on the object format (.o) ? On what Linux versions
> : will a pre-link on RedHat 6.1 link and execute correctly ?
>
> aout is not a format currently in use. ELF is the current executable
> format. The object format is also ELF.
>
> As to what a pre-link means, I think you had better define! The linux
> distros are ALL binary compatible. The problem between distributions
> is, by definition, different placements of configuration files,
> different packaging formats and file system placement standards.
> Different configuration policies, and so on.
>
> If you mean you have statically linked your code, well, then you can't
> have any linking problems so why do you ask? If you are using dynamic
> linking, then list your dependencies! That's what package formats are
> for.
>
> : - How does one measure this compatibility (egcs version? glibc
> : version? xf86 version?)
>
> One goes and tries it. Have you considered testing your product before
> releasing it?
>
> : - How general is the rpm packaging format for the release?
>
> It's used by redhat and SuSE. Note that you will, of course, have to
> provide different rpm's for these two different target distributions.
> But why would you care? Any package can be converted to any other
> package format in an instant. The problem is what you have placed
> inside, not the package format! Make a .tgz (for slackware) and a .deb
> (for debian) as well.
>
> : Our thanks in advance for any answer
>
> I suggest you desist from distributing your binary and make available
> the code, so that at least it can be corrected by people who will
> be less ignorant! Carrying on as you seem to be doing will probably
> only get you bad press. If you want detailed advice on particular
> distros policies, contact the distro.
>
> Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: 2 Apr 2000 11:10:27 GMT
Lee Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Had a bad day? ;-)
Trying to save the world from a bad next week.
: "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
:> In comp.os.linux.development.apps H. McKame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> These questions are so naive that I wouldn't trust any programmer that
:> has to ask them. Who are you hiring, if anyone?
:>
:> : My company is currently finishing its product on Red Hat 6.1.
:> : Given the multiplicity of Linux versions, we are worried about
:> : distributing our product on Linux in general.
:>
:> : You out there that have already gone this route, could you please
:> : share your experience:
:>
:> : - How compatible are Linux versions between vendors on the executable
:> : format (a.out), and on the object format (.o) ? On what Linux versions
:> : will a pre-link on RedHat 6.1 link and execute correctly ?
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego Berge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Zero padding in sprintf() doesn't work for strings - HELP !
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 13:39:58 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:48:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen
Harris) wrote:
>Juergen Heinzl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: In article <8briic$ofu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bill davidsen wrote:
>
>[ Re 0 padding of strings ]
>
>: > Another reason why it should be changed. Both AIX and hp-ux pad with
>: >zeros as expected, so it would be at minimum acceptable to do it that
>
>
>: ... conversions and the same as far as the Unix98 specification
>: is concerned, so your installations of AIX and HP-UX are doing it
>: wrong and you might see whether there is an appropriate patch.
>
>Solaris 7 does it with zero's as well, although the manpage doesn't
>say it should :-)
>
>It sort of makes sense - if you want space padding, then the default syntax
>without a zero does that for you.
OTOH, since a zero does not have much more of a special relation to
a string than any other character (except whitespace, which separates
words), if you allow it to take a meaning as a format modifier,
shouldn't it be generalized to other characters as well? -- what's
wrong with something like %_s, %*s, %js (padding w/ underscores,
asterisks, j's), after all? btw, I believe C++ does do this, no?
Besides, you can always get the same effect by modifying the string
before the %s statement in question sees it.
Regards,
Diego Berge.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 22:15:48 +1000
From: Nigel Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux 2.3.99-pre3 causes kernel panic in aha1542.c
Hi all,
Whenever I am running 2.3.99-pre3 and try to recompile the kernel I get the
following error:
==========ERROR MESSAGE BEGIN===================================
Bad segment list supplied to aha1542.c (17, 0)
0: c009d200 c6ab3400 1024
1: c009d600 c6ada000 1024
2: c009da00 c6ab6800 1024
3: c009c000 c6acfc00 1024
4: c009c400 c6acf400 1024
5: c009c800 c6ad2800 1024
6: c009cc00 c6ad2000 1024
7: c02d7000 c6ad0000 1024
8: c02d7400 c6ac0c00 1024
9: c02d7800 c6ab3c00 1024
10: c02d7c00 c6ac2800 1024
11: c02d6000 c6ac8000 1024
12: c02d6400 c6ac6000 1024
13: c02d6800 c6ac8400 1024
14: c02d6c00 c6ad7c00 1024
15: c02d5000 c6abd000 1024
16: c02d5400 c6abb400 1024
cptr c009de00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
<0>Kernel panic: Foooooooood fight!
In interrupt handler - not syncing
==========ERROR MESSAGE END=====================================
Note: this does not happen when I am running a 2.3.39 kernel and compile
the 2.3.99-pre3 kernel.
I have read through the info the Documentation directory, but that was no
help. Also, I have the latest version of the utilities listed in the
Changes file.
Does anyone know what to do to fix this problem in the SCSI driver.
My system has the following:
Linux 2.3.39/2.3.99-pre3
gcc 2.95.2
glibc 2.1.2
AMD K6-2 CPU
Intel 430TX chipset motherboard
Adaptec AHA1542CF SCSI controller
Thanks in advance,
Nigel
--
Nigel Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 22950681
------------------------------
From: "eliz154" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.portable,comp.windows.x,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: ATT: Pls help -Problems installing linux
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:48:32 +0100
Hi
I'm having problems installing Rehat on a toshiba satellite 4030cds. I've
had linux installing on this laptop before, but I can't remember the
settings I used for the monitor. Can someone pls help?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: q_49@hot###mail.com
Subject: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 13:30:03 GMT
If I have a distribution with the latest stable kernel, and I want to
compile an earlier version kernel (for a thin client). What do I
have to do in order to compile this earlier kernel ,along with any
modules I may need (eg a 2.0 kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine) on the
newer kernel machine?
Thanks in advance
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine
Date: 2 Apr 2000 13:52:50 GMT
q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
: If I have a distribution with the latest stable kernel, and I want to
: compile an earlier version kernel (for a thin client). What do I
: have to do in order to compile this earlier kernel ,along with any
: modules I may need (eg a 2.0 kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine) on the
: newer kernel machine?
Nothing. The running kernel makes no difference.
: Thanks in advance
Peter
------------------------------
From: q_49@hot###mail.com
Subject: Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 14:26:19 GMT
Do you mean that the same kernel source tree used to compile the
current 2.2 type kernel can be used to compile a 2.0 or lower version
kernel??
On 2 Apr 2000 13:52:50 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
>: If I have a distribution with the latest stable kernel, and I want to
>: compile an earlier version kernel (for a thin client). What do I
>: have to do in order to compile this earlier kernel ,along with any
>: modules I may need (eg a 2.0 kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine) on the
>: newer kernel machine?
>
>Nothing. The running kernel makes no difference.
>
>: Thanks in advance
>
>Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Roark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 14:54:25 GMT
On 2 Apr 2000 09:50:20 GMT, Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>These questions are so naive that I wouldn't trust any programmer that
>has to ask them....
The poster didn't say he's a programmer. Are naive questions
forbidden?
>I suggest you desist from distributing your binary and make available
>the code, so that at least it can be corrected by people who will
>be less ignorant! Carrying on as you seem to be doing will probably
>only get you bad press. If you want detailed advice on particular
>distros policies, contact the distro.
That's incredibly rude. Mr. Breuer, you make us all look bad.
-- Rod
======================================================================
Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
======================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine
Date: 2 Apr 2000 14:54:55 GMT
q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
: Do you mean that the same kernel source tree used to compile the
: current 2.2 type kernel can be used to compile a 2.0 or lower version
: kernel??
No. (how can you relate that to what I said?). Please don't pretend to
be dense ... obviously you need the appropriate kernel source in order
to compile the kernel of your hearts desire. You also need a C compiler,
in case you are going to ask that next ...
: On 2 Apr 2000 13:52:50 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
:>q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
:>: If I have a distribution with the latest stable kernel, and I want to
:>: compile an earlier version kernel (for a thin client). What do I
:>: have to do in order to compile this earlier kernel ,along with any
:>: modules I may need (eg a 2.0 kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine) on the
:>: newer kernel machine?
:>
:>Nothing. The running kernel makes no difference.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "J. C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.kernel
Subject: Re: 2.3.99-4-2: Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on ....
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 15:43:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian J�nsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: But, when I try to boot the kernel it fails for somehow not being able
: to mount the
: root fs, not even with an explicit "root=/dev/hda6" boot option
: appended.
[...]
: #
: # Partition Types
: #
: # CONFIG_PARTITION_ADVANCED is not set
: CONFIG_MSDOS_PARTITION=y
: CONFIG_NLS=y
Try setting the "advanced partition" thing in your config. I had a
similar problem a while back, and the kernel couldn't seem to read my
partition table, which had been set up under dos.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: 2 Apr 2000 15:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
H. McKame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - How compatible are Linux versions between vendors on the executable
> format (a.out), and on the object format (.o) ? On what Linux versions
> will a pre-link on RedHat 6.1 link and execute correctly ?
Not all. For example, debian doesn't ship with termcap -
programs should be linked against ncurses instead. Depending
on the specific libraries though, a RH6.1 compiled version should
work on most distros.
> - How does one measure this compatibility (egcs version? glibc
> version? xf86 version?)
I'd look at the output of ldd. And for some systems that haven't
had a stable glibc2.1 release yet (debian slink), glibc COULD be
a problem as well.
> - How general is the rpm packaging format for the release?
deb is quite common as well, and slackware uses a binary
.tgz format. If your company wants to release consistently
binaries across distros, it will take a little work. The
problems will be small, but you really don't want to shut
anyone out.
And any ppc/alpha/sparc packages will require recompiling.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Markus Kossmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.3.99-4-2: Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on ....
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 18:26:46 +0200
Christian J�nsson wrote:
[...]
> Now this is what is printed in the end while trying to boot this kernel:
>
> VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem).
> kmod: failed to exec /sbin/modprobe -s -k block-major-3, errno = 2
[...]
>
> #
> # ATA/IDE/MFM/RLL support
> #
> # CONFIG_IDE is not set
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_MODES is not set
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_HD is not set
>
You didn't compile IDE support into your kernel. So you can't mount your
root partition on a IDE disk.
--
Markus Kossmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: q_49@hot###mail.com
Subject: Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:03:58 GMT
How can you relate my questions to me being "dense".? . What I can
relate is that I can inferr from your reply below that you SEEM to
have an attitude problem. The question I was asking was how do I set
up the source tree for my desired kernel within the confines of my
current linux distro with its 2.2 kernel source tree. This was in
effect my first question. Your answer was "nothing". Well obviously
this is not the case. The earlier kernel's source tree has to be set
up somehow . I was just looking for pointers on how best to go about
this. I have some ideas but was just looking for feedback. Now go back
to your cave and don't bother responding.
On 2 Apr 2000 14:54:55 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
>
>: Do you mean that the same kernel source tree used to compile the
>: current 2.2 type kernel can be used to compile a 2.0 or lower version
>: kernel??
>
>No. (how can you relate that to what I said?). Please don't pretend to
>be dense ... obviously you need the appropriate kernel source in order
>to compile the kernel of your hearts desire. You also need a C compiler,
>in case you are going to ask that next ...
>
>
>: On 2 Apr 2000 13:52:50 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>: wrote:
>
>:>q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
>:>: If I have a distribution with the latest stable kernel, and I want to
>:>: compile an earlier version kernel (for a thin client). What do I
>:>: have to do in order to compile this earlier kernel ,along with any
>:>: modules I may need (eg a 2.0 kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine) on the
>:>: newer kernel machine?
>:>
>:>Nothing. The running kernel makes no difference.
>
>Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
