Thanks Martin, I could build bios-crypto from git. It signs and it looks
like everything works :)
Thanks everybody for the help.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:51 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jose Prous
> wrot
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:51 -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jose Prous wrote:
> > > Yes it's a x86 machine, I guess that is the problem. Thanks.
> >
> > Glad that we found the reason. We should add an explicit check in OOB
> > that gives you a more useful error msg
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 09:54 -0400, Jose Prous wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies.
>
>
> We did a build using qemu, it took about 3 hours, it's acceptable for
> our needs.
>
>
>
> Now the problem is signing the build. But it looks like bios-crypto
> doesn't work with arm.
I have my XO-1.75 s
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Jose Prous wrote:
> Now the problem is signing the build. But it looks like bios-crypto doesn't
> work with arm.
It does work on ARM. There's one for soft FP (if you are building
11.3.x from a F14 system) here
http://dev.laptop.org/~martin/bios-crypto-v0.5-44-g89dd
Thanks for all the replies.
We did a build using qemu, it took about 3 hours, it's acceptable for our
needs.
Now the problem is signing the build. But it looks like bios-crypto doesn't
work with arm.
What is normally done in this case? Sign in a x86 machine?
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Jam
I agree, the ratio between emulation and native is not so great, it is
only around 2:1. Having fast I/O attached to your emulator host
would compensate to some degree.
For those with slow or unreliable internet, it may be faster to do a
build in emulation than to use an XO-1.75 over SSH followed
Thats not so bad (relatively).
Thanks for the info Jerry!
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 22:12 -0400, Martin Abente wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Martin Langhoff
> > wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Martin A
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 22:12 -0400, Martin Abente wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Martin Langhoff
> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Martin Abente
> wrote:
> > Have anyone actually tried to emulate?
>
>
> Not that I know. B
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Martin Abente
> wrote:
> > Have anyone actually tried to emulate?
>
> Not that I know. But I would expect it to be ~10x slower than on an
> XO-1.75. And better hw should be available in the coming months,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Martin Abente
wrote:
> Have anyone actually tried to emulate?
Not that I know. But I would expect it to be ~10x slower than on an
XO-1.75. And better hw should be available in the coming months, and
affordable (<$200).
m
--
mar...@laptop.org -- Software Archi
Hi Martin:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:51 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> > Instead, you should fix OOB so it works to cross-compile.
>
> Unfortunately, OOB is just a nice wrapper around anaconda and rpm. You
> cannot cross-build because
>
> -
martin wrote:
>
> TBH, I have never seen any OS image builder / composer in the Linux
> world that works cross platform.
which isn't to say that we don't make extensive use of cross-compiling
in development. i think all of our dev kernels are cross-compiled,
and probably most of us use cross-
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:51 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> Instead, you should fix OOB so it works to cross-compile.
Unfortunately, OOB is just a nice wrapper around anaconda and rpm. You
cannot cross-build because
- The anaconda toolchain does not have a good separation of
environment arch vs targ
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jose Prous wrote:
> > Yes it's a x86 machine, I guess that is the problem. Thanks.
>
> Glad that we found the reason. We should add an explicit check in OOB
> that gives you a more useful error msg.
Instead, you should fix OOB so it works to cross-compile. We
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jose Prous wrote:
> Yes it's a x86 machine, I guess that is the problem. Thanks.
Glad that we found the reason. We should add an explicit check in OOB
that gives you a more useful error msg.
Compared with x86 builders, an XO-1.75 is fairly slow, and getting
fast
Yes it's a x86 machine, I guess that is the problem. Thanks.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Jose Prous wrote:
> > Hello, I'm José Prous from Paraguay Educa.
> >
> > I'm trying compile an OLPC build for the XO 1.75.
> >
> > I followed th
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Jose Prous wrote:
> Hello, I'm José Prous from Paraguay Educa.
>
> I'm trying compile an OLPC build for the XO 1.75.
>
> I followed the instructions in http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OS_Builder
What is your build host machine? Is it an XO-1.75, or otherwise an ARM comp
Hello, I'm José Prous from Paraguay Educa.
I'm trying compile an OLPC build for the XO 1.75.
I followed the instructions in http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OS_Builder
I used os-builder from the git source in the commit
252aa2a3c2859e2677e05675f7eaff2b5b430e54 and using the config file
olpc-os-12.1.0-x
18 matches
Mail list logo
