Linux-Development-Sys Digest #343, Volume #8 Tue, 12 Dec 00 22:13:18 EST
Contents:
linux raid questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: looking for SCSI Domex DMX 1391D driver ("Alk")
Allocating memory for multiple pages ("Kang Mo Yang")
Re: kernel questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: changing BASH's path searching (Tony Lawrence)
Re: How to optimize the Kernel-Compile (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Command named "shell" in toplevel kernel makefile ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
using ioctl() to add logical interface on a physical one ("Vasanthan Gunaratnam")
Re: Allocating memory for multiple pages ("Lee Ho")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Dietmar Kuehl)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: kernel questions ("lobotomy")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.kernel
Subject: linux raid questions
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:15:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am running Raid 1 on a Dual Pentium II 400 with 2 IDE drives and
have a few questions for anyone that knows. The distro is Mandrake 7.2
and I am running the stock 2.2.17-21 kernel that came with the distro.
Should I upgrade the kernel to 2.2.18? If so, does it require raid
patching?
What is the best way to change chunk sizes in a raid array?
Are there other parameters that can be changed for tuning purposes?
What is the best benchmark tool for ata harddisk io testing? i.e. is
bonnie good or should I use something better?
What are the best ways to recover from a power failure where the
filesystems do not unount cleanly?
If I am booting raid 1, which I am, how can I unmount /dev/md0 and
/dev/md1 in order to run e2fsck on harddrive partitions?
Thanks for any answers to the above.
Charles
------------------------------
From: "Alk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: looking for SCSI Domex DMX 1391D driver
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:10:57 +0200
Reply-To: "Alk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've got drivers here (AdvanSys.com)
http://www.connectcom.net/downloads/software/os/linux.html
And they work with DMX _3191D_ which came with Mustek Scanner
AG
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Mustek SCSI scanner I use comes with a SCSI device called "Domex
> DMX 1391D" which has a chip denoted as "DOMEX 536", sublined "9827".
>
> I had a look at the scsi low level drivers in the kernel 2.2.17
> xconfig app, some denoted with "53" at the beginning but non which
> would really shout out -" take me"! I didn't expect to find
> "DOMEX_xxx" but some chip should be compatible to the one on the Domex
> controler - assuming it would be to expensive to design one from the
> ground up.
>
>
> Any suggestions or help?
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kang Mo Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Allocating memory for multiple pages
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:13:41 -0500
Hello all,
Is there any way of allocating a memory which is physically contiguous for
multiple pages?
I know that one way is disabling a part of memory and using the disabled
part from a driver. But, I am looking for a way more dynamic.
Kang Mo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: kernel questions
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:25:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> What is a backport?
Generally this refers to code being moved from a newer (possibly
development) software to an update to an older version of the software.
In this case, the developers took the USB support code from the 2.4
kernel series and grafted it on to the 2.2.18 kernel, so you have the
same support as you would have with the newer (but still in testing)
kernel.
> What patch goes with what kernel? i.e. Does patch-2.2.18 update kernel
> 2.2.17 or 2.2.18?
The naming convention for patches is the version of the kernel it is
_patched_to_, so patch-2.2.18 would patch the source of kernel 2.2.17
to 2.2.18. They should also be applied in order, and third party
patches are applied.
Cheers,
Jan Walter
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Tony Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: changing BASH's path searching
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:08:11 -0500
Alex Graf wrote:
> But if every package had its own directory, then you don't need to
> search with find, or even look it up in a package database -- all you
> need to do is check if its directory is there or not.
A few years ago, SCO decided that they would solve this problem
by way of symbolic links: they put packages of related files in
their own directories, and then scattered symbolic links in all
the traditional locations. Thus, /etc/passwd was just a symbolic
link pointing deep into /var/opt/K/SCO/etc or some gawd-awful
thing like that. The idea, of course, was that you could easily
manage packages by having them "together". It was one of those
Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time things and ended up being
universally hated by everyone, probably including whoever it was
that came up wuth the idea in the first place.
--
Tony Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: How to optimize the Kernel-Compile
Date: 12 Dec 2000 22:24:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Resch wrote:
>juergen Heinzl wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Resch wrote:
>> >Hi!
>> >
>> >I want to use a 486 DX-2-66 as a router. For a little more performance i
>> >want to compile the Kernel for 486.
>> >I've modified all Makefile 's from '-O2' to '-O9 -march=i486 -mcpu=i486'
>> >but the kernel doesn't start.
>> [-]
>> You can modify the Makefile's until the cows come home, but -O3 is the
>> limit anyway.
>>
>> >What modification options can be used in a 2.2.17 Kernel?
>> [-]
>> You might have triggered a compiler bug and the next question is which
>> compiler do you use to compile the kernel ? At least 2.7.2.3 does not
>> understand -march=... -mcpu=... and I can't remember whether egcs-1.n.m
>> does.
>
>I use the GCC 2.95.2. The Compiler recognizes the flags but the kernel
>won't boot...
>Optimizing in the 'make menuconfig' Script does only use the
>'-mcpu='-flag in the shorter Version '-m486'
>but i want to optimize for my 486 in everything and not only the
>scheduler as the -m486 does.
>From the kernel's Changes file ...
"Note that the latest compilers (pgcc, gcc 2.95) may do Bad
Things while compiling your kernel, particularly if absurd
optimizations (like -O9) are used. Caveat emptor. In general, however,
gcc-2.7.2.3 and egcs 1.1.2 are known to be stable on x86, while gcc 2.95
and others have not been as thoroughly tested yet."
... and keep in mind even a 486er might be quite able to bog down
other devices or peripherals.
IMHO you had better stick the defaults as no kernel can be slower than
a not working one. IMHO again people think all too often more higher opts.
would generate that much faster code, but compared to RISC machines don't
expect a huge gain with Intel PC's.
Cheers,
Juergen
--
\ Real name : J�rgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Command named "shell" in toplevel kernel makefile
Date: 12 Dec 2000 15:43:08 -0500
Read the info on gnu make to learn what $(shell ...) means.
------------------------------
From: "Vasanthan Gunaratnam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: using ioctl() to add logical interface on a physical one
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:31:22 -0500
I would appreciate it if someone could provide me with or point me to some
sample code that demonstrates
adding a logical interface on a physical interface using the ioctl()
function.
i.e. I want to accomplish the same as what the ifconfig command would if the
following were executed:
( Given that hme2 is a physical interface which has already been
configured and is up. )
> ifconfig hme2:1
> ifconfig hme2:1 inet 128.10.1..32 netmask 255.255.255.0
> ifconfig hme2:1 up
OS: Solaris 2.6, 2.8, Linux.
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: "Lee Ho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Allocating memory for multiple pages
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:16:33 GMT
Kang Mo Yang Writes:
>Is there any way of allocating a memory which is physically contiguous for
>multiple pages?
>
>I know that one way is disabling a part of memory and using the disabled
>part from a driver. But, I am looking for a way more dynamic.
In kernel module, kmalloc() and __get_free_pages() returns physically continuous
memory.
If you want it in user application, allocate memory in kernel module,
and remap it into virtual address space.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Lee, Ho. Software Engineer, Embedded Linux Dep, LinuxOne
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
Homepage : http://flyduck.com, http://linuxkernel.to
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:22:17 -0800
Pete Becker wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On another note, it's my understanding that Dinkumware is trying to make
> > a business out of selling a version of libstdc++
>
> We do not sell any version of libstdc++. We do sell our standard library
> for use with gcc.
Thank you for providing this incentive for me and others to contribute
to the development and widespread use of the free C++ library.
Don't take it out on us if you chose a foolish way to try to make
money. And don't try to confuse and scare people into buying your
product. That's not nice.
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:51:02 -0800
jbs wrote:
>
> Pete Becker wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > On another note, it's my understanding that Dinkumware is trying to make
> > > a business out of selling a version of libstdc++
> >
> > We do not sell any version of libstdc++. We do sell our standard library
> > for use with gcc.
>
> Thank you for providing this incentive for me and others to contribute
> to the development and widespread use of the free C++ library.
>
> Don't take it out on us if you chose a foolish way to try to make
> money. And don't try to confuse and scare people into buying your
> product. That's not nice.
Once again: base technical decisions on facts, not on innuendo. I make
no apologies for urging people to get sound legal advice before making
business decisions that involve licensing issues. That is simply common
sense.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dietmar Kuehl)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: 13 Dec 2000 01:57:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Pete Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Technical and quais-legal discussions should be based on facts, not on
: innuendo. I make no apologies for urging people to get sound legal
: advice before making business decisions that involve licensing issues.
: That is simply common sense.
You could probably bring our point across more easily if libstdc++
weren't in direct competion one of Dinkumware's product: As is, you try
to scare people away from your competion on rather vague grounds.
Although it is true that handwaving is no legal advice, it is also true
that the libstdc++ people make sure that their product is applicable to
commercial application.
IMO other standard library implementations, like the one from
Dinkumware, also have licenses which are rather vague (eg. it is at
best unclear whether it is permittable to ship a DLL with the
Dinkumware library together with a product making use of it; actually,
it is my understanding that this is not permittable).
--
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/~kuehl/>
Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:48:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Thus, if your C++ program does not include any GPL or LGPL code itself,
>> then compiling with GCC and linking with GCC's libstdc++
>> does not force your program to adopt or follow the GPL or LGPL
>> (your program falls under the special exception clause). QED.
>
>Unfortunately, you are not the final authority on this. If you
>distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC and linked to
>the GNU libraries someone may still sue you to force you to disclose
>your source code as well. You may be obliged to defend your right to
>prevent other people from exploiting your source code and you may
>even be obliged to defend your right to exploit your own source code.
>The court will decide. And, until some court does decide such a
>case, Richard Stallman is just expressing his opinion about what the
>GPL and the LGPL mean.
This is FUD. First, anyone can sue you at any time for any
reason they want, in just about any court they want, and you may feel
obligated or not to defend yourself. This goes without saying, and we
will not mention it further.
In reality the copyright in gcc is held by the FSF and only the
copyright owner can sue you. rms is the FSF. This means that if rms
says he will not sue you and his opinion is X, then, that is that.
QED, as was said earlier. Sure, someone else could try and claim
ownership, and could try and sue you, but, they are fighting an uphill
battle, as first they have to prove ownership. This is like worrying
about using images from claimed PD clip art collection. Sure, they
can be copyrighted, and not actually PD, and someone could even sue
you and win, but generally speaking, we discount this in everyday
conversation, and say, no, you cannot be sued (successfully) for using
PD clip art.
And the court is not the end all, there are appeals, courts can change
their opinion over time, legislative bodies can issue new laws and so
on. Also, two seemingly identical cases to are not guaranteed to
yield the same results.
The world is, as the first poster presented it.
The court cannot force the FSF to sue you for what they consider a
violation. Only the FSF, through their own decision, can sue you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:54:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bad idea. He happens to be right. Rights under copyright law are decided
>by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
>that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
>on.
You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
can take them at their word they won't sue you. The law is in fact
immaterial.
You are thinking of a different case. The case more like RIPEM, where
they assert rights that you think no court would uphold. In that
case, I agree with you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:50:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tisdale is a known troll. Save your keystrokes.
Ah, now you tell me. I just fired one off. We need a post moderation
autobot that will killfile trolls like Tisdale from this group. It
would save much confusion.
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:11:26 +0000
Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bad idea. He happens to be right. Rights under copyright law are decided
> >by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
> >that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
> >on.
>
> You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
> if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
> can take them at their word they won't sue you. The law is in fact
> immaterial.
>
> You are thinking of a different case. The case more like RIPEM, where
> they assert rights that you think no court would uphold. In that
> case, I agree with you.
I don't think anybody is worried about the FSF suing them
for not disclosing source code for applications
that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
for not disclosing source code for applications
that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:20:36 -0800
Pete Becker wrote:
> Once again: base technical decisions on facts, not on innuendo.
The only one spreading innuendo here is you.
> I make
> no apologies for urging people to get sound legal advice before making
> business decisions that involve licensing issues. That is simply common
> sense.
I wouldn't expect you to apologize. Nevertheless, your use of FUD to
promote your products is reprehensible.
I suggest that people get sound legal advice before using your
products. Given your propensity to distort the content and meaning of
the GNU licenses, as well as the intent of the licensor, I would be
concerned about what you might imagine your own license means, after I
invested millions of dollars in my own product that depended on it (not
that I would).
------------------------------
From: "lobotomy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel questions
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.kernel
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:42:01 GMT
patch-2.2.18 upgrades 2.2.17 to 2.2.18.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> What is a backport?
>
> What patch goes with what kernel? i.e. Does patch-2.2.18 update kernel
> 2.2.17 or 2.2.18?
>
> best regards, charles
--
PC Chips actually goes by many names. PCChips = Ability = Alton = Amptron =
Aristo = Asia Gate = Asiatech = Assa = Atrend = Elpina = Eurone = Fugu =
Fugutech = Hi Sing = Houston = Hsing Tech = H Tech = Matsonic = Minstaple =
PCWare = Pine = Protac = QDI = Warpspeed
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:42:03 +0000
Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Thus, if your C++ program does not include any GPL or LGPL code itself,
> >> then compiling with GCC and linking with GCC's libstdc++
> >> does not force your program to adopt or follow the GPL or LGPL
> >> (your program falls under the special exception clause). QED.
> >
> >Unfortunately, you are not the final authority on this. If you
> >distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC and linked to
> >the GNU libraries someone may still sue you to force you to disclose
> >your source code as well. You may be obliged to defend your right to
> >prevent other people from exploiting your source code and you may
> >even be obliged to defend your right to exploit your own source code.
> >The court will decide. And, until some court does decide such a
> >case, Richard Stallman is just expressing his opinion about what the
> >GPL and the LGPL mean.
>
> This is FUD. First, anyone can sue you at any time for any
> reason they want, in just about any court they want, and you may feel
> obligated or not to defend yourself. This goes without saying, and we
> will not mention it further.
>
> In reality the copyright in gcc is held by the FSF and only the
> copyright owner can sue you. rms is the FSF. This means that if rms
> says he will not sue you and his opinion is X, then, that is that.
> QED, as was said earlier. Sure, someone else could try and claim
> ownership, and could try and sue you, but, they are fighting an uphill
> battle, as first they have to prove ownership. This is like worrying
> about using images from claimed PD clip art collection. Sure, they
> can be copyrighted, and not actually PD, and someone could even sue
> you and win, but generally speaking, we discount this in everyday
> conversation, and say, no, you cannot be sued (successfully) for using
> PD clip art.
>
> And the court is not the end all, there are appeals, courts can change
> their opinion over time, legislative bodies can issue new laws and so
> on. Also, two seemingly identical cases to are not guaranteed to
> yield the same results.
>
> The world is, as the first poster presented it.
>
> The court cannot force the FSF to sue you for what they consider a
> violation. Only the FSF, through their own decision, can sue you.
There you go again.
Yes, only the FSF can sue for infringement of their copyright
but that's not the question here.
What is in question here is the terms of the GPL and the LGPL.
The FSF probably is NOT going to sue anybody
even if they modify GPL'd software and refuse to distribute
the modified source code along with the binaries.
The FSF just can't afford to do that.
If you want the modified source code
you will probably need to sue them yourself.
If you need people from the FSF to testify for you as expert witnesses,
they will almost certainly expect you to pay all of their expenses
and they have a right to charge you fees for that service as well.
If they fail to show up in court and testify on your behalf,
you will have no recourse against them. You are on your own.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to the
comp.os.linux.development.system newsgroup.
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
******************************
