On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:53:07 -0600,
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[Brendan J Simon]
>> OK. I saw the instructions. kbuild-2.5-2.4.17-1 says to patch
>> against the linus-2.4.17 kernel where as kbuild-2.5-2.4.16-ppc-2 says
>> to patch against the marcelo kernel. I did a search o
[Brendan J Simon]
> OK. I saw the instructions. kbuild-2.5-2.4.17-1 says to patch
> against the linus-2.4.17 kernel where as kbuild-2.5-2.4.16-ppc-2 says
> to patch against the marcelo kernel. I did a search on google and
> found Marcelo's directory of kernels. Are these specially patched
> k
Keith Owens wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:07:43 +1100,
>Brendan J Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Where can I find documentation on how to install/run/patch or whatever I
>>have to do to get this working with the latest 2.4 kernel for a powerpc
>>architecture.
>>
>>I've downloaded kbui
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:45:24 +0100,
Rasmus Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've created a 2.4.18p1+kbuild tree (clean 2.4.18p1 tree,
>apply kbuild-2.5-2.4.16-3.bz2, kbuild-2.5-2.4.17-1.bz2,
>kbuild-2.5-2.4.18-pre1-1.bz2) and copied in an old .config.
>When I run 'make -f Makefile-2.5 oldco
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:07:43 +1100,
Brendan J Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Where can I find documentation on how to install/run/patch or whatever I
>have to do to get this working with the latest 2.4 kernel for a powerpc
>architecture.
>
>I've downloaded kbuild-2.5-2.4.17-1.bz. Is that al
Where can I find documentation on how to install/run/patch or whatever I
have to do to get this working with the latest 2.4 kernel for a powerpc
architecture.
I've downloaded kbuild-2.5-2.4.17-1.bz. Is that all I need ???
Thanks,
Brendan Simon.
Keith Owens wrote:
>Anything from 2.4.16 on
Hi.
I've created a 2.4.18p1+kbuild tree (clean 2.4.18p1 tree,
apply kbuild-2.5-2.4.16-3.bz2, kbuild-2.5-2.4.17-1.bz2,
kbuild-2.5-2.4.18-pre1-1.bz2) and copied in an old .config.
When I run 'make -f Makefile-2.5 oldconfig installable'
it loops in the oldconfig phase forever.
The tie-over of ea
Andrew Pimlott writes:
> This isn't accurate. bar1.h is out of date, but if its rule doesn't
> change its timestamp, so that bar1.h is still older than foo.o,
> foo.o will not be rebuilt. IOW, make doesn't equate "running its
> rule" with "updating it".
I checked and you are right and I am wro
This doesn't affect your explanation as a whole, but ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:35:54AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> The way that the dependencies are set up is:
>
> foo.o: foo.c bar1.h
> gcc -D __KERNEL__ ... -o foo.o foo.c
>
> bar1.h: bar2.h
> touch bar1.h
>
>
Hi Brendan,
Here's the historical rationale on the "touch" commands.
Suppose that foo.c includes bar1.h, bar1.h includes bar2.h.
Suppose that you edit bar2.h, or more likely, you apply a patch
that changes bar2.h. Either way, you do something that updates bar2.h.
The way that the dependencies
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:19:49 +1100,
Brendan J Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, can I use kbuild on a 2.4.0 linux tree ?
Not on 2.4.0, but nobody in their right mind would use that kernel
anyway, it was very buggy.
>If not, what about a later 2.4.x kernel (eg. 2.4.17) ???
Anything from 2.
11 matches
Mail list logo
