Linux-Development-Sys Digest #728, Volume #7 Sun, 2 Apr 00 15:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux (q_49@hot###mail.com)
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Esteban Soto")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux (John Hasler)
GAMES PLAY UK ( WANTED ) TOYS+GAMES ("gamesplayuk")
Re: How do I make shared libraries? (John Reiser)
Re: 2.3.99-4-2: Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on .... (Christian
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6nsson?=)
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: q_49@hot###mail.com
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:15:25 GMT
Well said Rod. Mr. Breuer also made some unseemly comments in
response to a question I asked. His answers are usually condescending
and invariably unhelpful. It seems that this is "normal" behavior
for him, I pity his co-workers. It is consoling to know that his
attitude is in the minority.
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 14:54:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Roark)
wrote:
>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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: 2 Apr 2000 17:36:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Rod Roark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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?
>From a person trying to get a commercial product out the door, yes.
If he isn't the project architect, then what's he doing posting? He
has to be able to understand the answer! And he didn't seem to be
able to phrase a technically meaningful question, so may the gods
help them!
:>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.
It's incredibly good advice. Rudeness does not enter into it. Exactly
who are you trying to protect? I was trying to protect them, and you,
in about equal magnitude. Having bad software out there IS bad, and
having bad linux software out there makes linux look bad.
Peter
------------------------------
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 17:39:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
: Well said Rod. Mr. Breuer also made some unseemly comments in
: response to a question I asked. His answers are usually condescending
: and invariably unhelpful. It seems that this is "normal" behavior
: for him, I pity his co-workers. It is consoling to know that his
: attitude is in the minority.
What world do you live in? Producing software is a technically
difficult task. It requires technical expertise, not politeness and
good manners! Indeed, politeness is culpable homicide in the technical
area.
I recommend you to fly in a plane controlled by a software written by
a technical incompetent you were too "polite" to tell to go and fix
his software.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: compiling an older kernel on a 2.2 kernel machine
Date: 2 Apr 2000 18:10:04 GMT
q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
: How can you relate my questions to me being "dense".? . What I can
Eh?
: 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
No it wasn't the question you were asking. If you like, I'll quote
you:
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?
Now quit trying to be cute. The answer is "precisely nothing". Except,
or course, the obvious minimum: fetch yourself the source code, read the
kernel README and do what it says (i.e. check the links) and then type
"make menuconfig dep bzimage modules".
Actually, I do have to apologize for one thing. I thought somehow that
you were asking how to compile a LATER kernel under an EARLIER kernel.
That requires no effort at all, since LATER kernels can be compiled
from any place you feel like.
However, EARLIER kernels do indeed prefer to be in /usr/src/linux,
which implies making that a symbolic link to where you actually
unpacked it. It's not mandatory that you put them there. You
can read the README and do what it says. But given that you
already have the links in /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm
pointing to the right plce, it will be simplest to simply usurp
the current kernel sources position.
: effect my first question. Your answer was "nothing". Well obviously
It's precisely what you have to do.
: this is not the case. The earlier kernel's source tree has to be set
: up somehow .
Of course it does. Get the tar and unpack it. What else would you do?
It doesn't really matter two hoots where you put it. In your home
directory sounds a good place to me. in /usr/src is better for
2.0.* kernels. Read the README and do what it says viz-a-viz the three
symbolic links. However, you need make NO changes to your distribution
apart from checking the links.
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.
Oh no you weren't. Please stop panting hot air. I'm perfectly aware
that you THOUGHT that you couldn't COMPILE kernel 2.0.36 while RUNNING
kernel 2.2.10. And that's what my answer addresses. I don't have any
compunction there. You have to make precisely NO changes in your
distribution.
:>:>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: "Esteban Soto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 14:14:22 -0300
>> In comp.os.linux.development.apps q_49@hot###mail.com wrote:
>> Well said Rod. Mr. Breuer also made some unseemly comments in
>> response to a question I asked. His answers are usually condescending
>> and invariably unhelpful. It seems that this is "normal" behavior
>> for him, I pity his co-workers. It is consoling to know that his
>> attitude is in the minority.
>Peter T. Breuer escribi� en mensaje <8c80ku$482$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>What world do you live in? Producing software is a technically
>difficult task. It requires technical expertise, not politeness and
>good manners! Indeed, politeness is culpable homicide in the technical
>area.
>
>I recommend you to fly in a plane controlled by a software written by
>a technical incompetent you were too "polite" to tell to go and fix
>his software.
>
I just can't imagine a software capable of "controlling a plane" that was
written by a
lonely programmer... i guess in the real world things are usually built by
groups of
people... aka TEAMS.
I'm sure Linux wouldn't have come this far if it was developed by a bunch of
unpolite,
technically able people who could not comunicate.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 17:15:54 GMT
David T. Blake writes:
> Not all. For example, debian doesn't ship with termcap - programs should
> be linked against ncurses instead.
Debian provides the termcap-compat package for the purpose of supporting
programs that use termcap.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: "gamesplayuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: GAMES PLAY UK ( WANTED ) TOYS+GAMES
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:27:19 +0100
COMPANIES+INVENTORS
www.gamesplayuk.co.uk
------------------------------
From: John Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: How do I make shared libraries?
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 11:42:24 -0700
> Why is anyone still using egcs? The egcs developments were merged
> back into gcc (2.95.N) a long time since.
Why is there still hunger in the world? It's a matter of _distribution_,
which proceeds much like diffusion. Most users keep on using the compiler
that they got with their most recent CD-ROM containing Linux or other OS.
They don't have the download bandwidth, disk space, or motivation to track
and build gcc by themselves; and they're happy to have someone else perform
some non-developer testing, integration, and quality control.
------------------------------
From: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6nsson?= <[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 18:46:51 GMT
hmm, that was a good idea but no go. I changed the .config
so that it now reads
#
# Partition Types
#
CONFIG_PARTITION_ADVANCED=y
# CONFIG_ACORN_PARTITION is not set
# CONFIG_OSF_PARTITION is not set
# CONFIG_AMIGA_PARTITION is not set
# CONFIG_ATARI_PARTITION is not set
# CONFIG_MAC_PARTITION is not set
CONFIG_MSDOS_PARTITION=y
# CONFIG_BSD_DISKLABEL is not set
# CONFIG_SOLARIS_X86_PARTITION is not set
# CONFIG_UNIXWARE_DISKLABEL is not set
# CONFIG_SGI_PARTITION is not set
# CONFIG_SUN_PARTITION is not set
CONFIG_NLS=y
rebuilt the kernel and installed it but still the same problem :-(
Thanks for the suggestion though.
/ChJ
"J. C." wrote:
> 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] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: How compatible is Linux with .. Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 18:42:44 GMT
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 11:34:00 +0200, H. McKame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 ?
Forget about a.out; it's ancient history. You should distribute ELF objects.
>- How does one measure this compatibility (egcs version? glibc
>version? xf86 version?)
The number one concerns are the glibc version and the kernel version. Number
two would be the kernel and other libraries. You should try to target library
and kernel versions, not Linux distributions. That is, a given glibc version
and kernel version combo effectively constitute a target platform.
If you tested your software with one version of glibc, there is no telling
whether it will work with another version of glibc, particularly with an older
version which likely has bugs not present in a later one.
The best thing to do is probably to validate the software with a few different
recent glibc versions so you don't lock the user to a particular one.
People are going to want to upgrade their kernels and libs as time goes on
without necessarily getting an update from you, so you can't expect them to
use, say, glibc-2.1.3 forever.
You want to be able to say that this program is supported when used with these
versions of these libraries, on these kernels. As time goes on, you can revise
the list of supported libraries, as you upgrade your own development and build
environments to keep abreast. If you find that some earlier release of your
product works fine with some new kernels and library versions, then you can
just give those versions a stamp of approval and add them to the list of
supported targets.
As a last resort, you can always ship your software with its own set of
libraries rather than permit it to resolve to the target system's libraries.
That way the only variable thing is the kernel.
>- How general is the rpm packaging format for the release?
Not very, and it sucks donkey dung anyway for the purpose of software
installation. It works best for the base packages of a given Linux
distribution, not as a general installation mechanism. You'd be better off
creating your own installer which just unpacks compressed tape archives and
copies things into the right place. As soon as you write some interactive
installer which has some UI that asks the user questions, the packaging format
becomes irrelevant. You want to choose a standard one, like gzipped tar, that
is supported on all the platforms. Not all Linux distributions come with the
rpm tools: Slackware 7 does not, for instance. It's reasonable for an
installation script to require tar and gunzip; it's not reasonable to require
rpm tools.
--
#exclude <windows.h>
------------------------------
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 18:48:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: David T. Blake writes:
:> Not all. For example, debian doesn't ship with termcap - programs should
:> be linked against ncurses instead.
: Debian provides the termcap-compat package for the purpose of supporting
: programs that use termcap.
Does redhat really use termcap instead of terminfo?
Not that I mind. I don't use redhat and I like termcap. It's just that
it's unimaginable.
The software team in question must bear in mind that they not only have
to consider and test against all current distributions, but also
against their previous major versions. That means, for example, RH 5.1
as well as 6.1. And debian 2.0 as well as 2.1 (or whatever we are now
up to). Suse 5.3 as well as 6.3. Slack 4.0 as well as 7.0. Etc.
There is about as much difference vertically as horizontally. Probably
more!
Peter
------------------------------
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 18:56:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>- How general is the rpm packaging format for the release?
: Not very, and it sucks donkey dung anyway for the purpose of software
: installation. It works best for the base packages of a given Linux
: distribution, not as a general installation mechanism. You'd be better off
: creating your own installer which just unpacks compressed tape archives and
: copies things into the right place. As soon as you write some interactive
: installer which has some UI that asks the user questions, the packaging format
: becomes irrelevant. You want to choose a standard one, like gzipped tar, that
: is supported on all the platforms. Not all Linux distributions come with the
: rpm tools: Slackware 7 does not, for instance. It's reasonable for an
That bit is (unfortunately), not true. SW7 has rpm support.
barney:/usr/oboe/ptb% locate rpm | grep pack
/usr/share/pixmaps/mc/gnome-pack-rpm.png
/var/lib/rpm/packages.rpm
/var/log/packages/rpm
: installation script to require tar and gunzip; it's not reasonable to require
: rpm tools.
Indeed it isn't. But the effort in packaging is trivial. There problem
is the CONTENTS of the package.
Peter
------------------------------
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 18:45:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Esteban Soto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I just can't imagine a software capable of "controlling a plane" that was
: written by a lonely programmer... i guess in the real world things are
: usually built by groups of people... aka TEAMS.
Is this relevant? Presumably the person in question has a team behind
him! Or, I hope, in front.
The precise answer to the precise question above is "it depends".
Revolutionary software is usually written by one person, at least to the
point where it becomes financially or socially interesting.
: I'm sure Linux wouldn't have come this far if it was developed by a bunch of
: unpolite, technically able people who could not comunicate.
Err .. think again :-). Obviously you aren't on the kernel list!
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
******************************
