Hi Andrew
Am 06.12.2014 um 17:11 schrieb Andrew:
> Yes, I know that they're simple. It's just for unification.
> Or maybe it'll be enough to add 'lwp' section for package (which will be
> stored in .lwp tarball)?
Could you please elaborate?
Personally I am not too fond of buildtool, IMHO too muc
Yes, I know that they're simple. It's just for unification.
Or maybe it'll be enough to add 'lwp' section for package (which will be
stored in .lwp tarball)?
06.12.2014 15:13, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> Am 06.12.2014 um 12:47 schrieb Andrew:
>> Hi.
>> Maybe we should add 'lwp' buildtool pa
Hi Andrew
Am 06.12.2014 um 12:47 schrieb Andrew:
> Hi.
> Maybe we should add 'lwp' buildtool package type for lwp like for initrd?
They are really much simpler, no need to worry, but a generic build
process would be nice.
cheers
Erich
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Hi.
Maybe we should add 'lwp' buildtool package type for lwp like for initrd?
06.12.2014 13:41, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi KP
>
> Am 06.12.2014 um 09:13 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
>> Hi Erich;
>>
>> Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 22:13:01 schrieb Erich Titl:
>>> Hi KP
>>>
>>> I have not been able to unde
Hi KP
Am 06.12.2014 um 09:13 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Hi Erich;
>
> Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 22:13:01 schrieb Erich Titl:
>> Hi KP
>>
>> I have not been able to understand why the lwp generation is so
>> different in every aspect from the generation of 'normal' packages.
>> Where is the lo
Hi Erich;
Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 22:13:01 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> I have not been able to understand why the lwp generation is so
> different in every aspect from the generation of 'normal' packages.
> Where is the logic for the lwp generation hidden, it definitely does not
> have
Hi KP
I have not been able to understand why the lwp generation is so
different in every aspect from the generation of 'normal' packages.
Where is the logic for the lwp generation hidden, it definitely does not
have a buildtool.cfg which takes care of the package generation.
As there is no compil
Missed the cc: earlier ...
--- Begin Message ---
2.4 is fine as-is: people using it for production systems are not likely
to move off it for a long time (if ever). You have it, it works, there's
little impetus in general to move to anything else, with all the
additional effort/risk/cost i
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:51, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 09:14, David Douthitt wrote:
> > The makebootfat utility that was mentioned previously should be able to
> > do that. According to their docs:
> >
> > The USB-HDD (Hard Disk Drive) standard is the preferred
> > choice
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 09:14, David Douthitt wrote:
> The makebootfat utility that was mentioned previously should be able to
> do that. According to their docs:
>
> The BIOS USB boot support is generally differentiated
> in three categories: USB-HDD, USB-FDD and USB-ZIP.
>
> The USB
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 17:24, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Looking a bit further on the puppy linux site revealed they have a
> script for initializing a bootable usb drive.
>
> http://puppylinux.org/wikka/USB
> "Another alternative is that you can install Puppy
> tot
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
It should be possible to make an image that has an HDD partition table
with a smallish (ie: maybe 8 Megs or so, still a *LOT* bigger than a
floppy) FAT partition containing the boot files as the first partition.
The remaining space could be unused, or formatted and us
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 08:50, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 00:59, Luis.F.Correia wrote:
> > But I'm willing to 'sacrifice' one of my USB sticks
Luis,
I think backing up your USB drive's MBR using dd should avoid any
sacrifice. It should probably be a recommended first step.
So
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 00:59, Luis.F.Correia wrote:
> > From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > This should make it unnecessary to know the size of the USB
> > key (as long as the key is bigger than the boot partition
> > size). The geometry issue shouldn't generally be a
> > p
I am available too for testing.
having different epia, and a couple of assembled pcs.
Regards,
Andrea
--
Andrea Fino 8-) - "Sistemi su misura di qualita' industriale"
"Handcrafted systems with industrial quality"
[Web: http://www.faino.org ]+[Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
---
: leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [leaf-devel] lwp (webconf) packages
>
> Hi!
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >
> > IIRC, a USB keys can be formatted as a "floppy" type device
&
f needed.
Jorn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Luis.F.Correia
Sent: 17. mars 2006 10:00
To: leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [leaf-devel] lwp (webconf) packages
Hi!
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Steinkuehler
Hi!
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Steinkuehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> IIRC, a USB keys can be formatted as a "floppy" type device
> (ie: one partition), or as a HDD (ie: 4 primary partitions).
>
> It should be possible to make an image that has an HDD
> partition table
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 17:12, Mike Noyes wrote:
> I found this usb page at the Puppy Linux project. I know it's not much.
> I hope Charles' suggestion is of better utility.
>
> The Puppy Working USB Page
> http://puppylinux.org/wikka/USBWorking
Eric,
Looking a bit further on the pu
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 07:47, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Understood. I'll keep looking.
Eric,
I found this usb page at the Puppy Linux project. I know it's not much.
I hope Charles' suggestion is of better utility.
The Puppy Working USB Page
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/USBWorking
--
Mik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Spakman wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> The problem with this kind of tools is that they expect a real USB-key
> available with a certain size. The problem is that we need to create and
> image where a few aspects are uncertain:
> -The size of the usb-key
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 11:56, Eric Spakman wrote:
> The FAT fs has my preference, the driver is compiled in the kernel and
> it's easier to copy packages to it from a Windows computer.
Eric,
Understood. I'll continue searching for a solution.
--
Mike Noyes
http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/
S
Hello Mike,
>> I am wondering if may be used an ext2 filesystem. With that and
>> extlinux (present in the last syslinux distribution) I think it's easy
>> to boot from usb (and others).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea
>>
>
> Eric,
> Does Andrea's suggestion help?
>
The FAT fs has my preference, the driv
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:07, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:11, Andrea Fino wrote:
> > I am wondering if may be used an ext2 filesystem. With that and extlinux
> > (present in the last syslinux distribution) I think it's easy to boot
> > from usb (and others).
>
> Does Andrea's sug
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:11, Andrea Fino wrote:
> Mike Noyes wrote:
> >On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 02:43, Eric Spakman wrote:
> >>Can someone take a look at this link and create some script around it
> >>which creates an USB-flash image?
> >>
> >>>Makebootfat Bootable FAT Disk Creation
> >>>7 Multi Stand
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 07:20, Eric Spakman wrote:
> The problem with this kind of tools is that they expect a real USB-key
> available with a certain size. The problem is that we need to create and
> image where a few aspects are uncertain:
> -The size of the usb-key (Mbytes)
> -Geometry
Eric,
>Fro
Hi Mike,
The problem with this kind of tools is that they expect a real USB-key
available with a certain size. The problem is that we need to create and
image where a few aspects are uncertain:
-The size of the usb-key (Mbytes)
-Geometry
We need a generic tool which creates a bootable image that
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 02:43, Eric Spakman wrote:
> Can someone take a look at this link and create some script around it
> which creates an USB-flash image?
>
> > Makebootfat Bootable FAT Disk Creation
> > 7 Multi Standard USB Booting
> > http://advancemame.sourceforge.net/doc-makebootfat.html
Er
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 17:19, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:50, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:03, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > > Who is going to put the available lwp packages in
> > > leaf/bin/config/webconf? Just a question.
> >
> > I can take care of the
Hello all,
Can someone take a look at this link and create some script around it
which creates an USB-flash image?
Eric
>
> Eric,
> Does document help?
>
>
> Makebootfat Bootable FAT Disk Creation
> 7 Multi Standard USB Booting
> http://advancemame.sourceforge.net/doc-makebootfat.html
>
>
> --
>
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 16:21, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> I'd like to ask, what's your experience using a 2.6 kernel compared to a 2.4
> kernel for a router?
KP,
I think Tom Eastep might have a list of a few benefits of kernel 2.6
over 2.4 for firewalls. Ray and Charles may have some insights on the
Am Mittwoch, 15. März 2006 16:29 schrieb Venki Iyer:
> In any case, I did roll a 2.6-based version of Bering late last year
> (started out as a project effort, turned into a labor of love - thanks
> guys!), could probably push it back into one of the project trees if
> there is any interest. I'm no
Eric,
Absolutely yes! Still haven't received your own email on this topic,
though I'm seeing others from you - I'll pop you email offlist ...
-Venki
On 03/15/2006 02:37 PM, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:20, Eric Spakman wrote:
Instead of creating a new branch, we can al
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:50, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:03, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > Who is going to put the available lwp packages in leaf/bin/config/webconf?
> > Just a question.
>
> I can take care of the ones that are in my devel area. (That would be all of
> them
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:49, Venki Iyer wrote:
> Yes to the first, the second needs some work ... :-)
Venki,
I apologize. You're already a leaf project member. I really should check
our developer list. Just another example of a mistake I wouldn't have
made before my accident. :-(
http://s
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:49, Venki Iyer wrote:
> Yes to the first, the second needs some work ... :-)
Venki,
Please send me your SF user name, and I'll make you a leaf project
member.
Note to self: Review all messages marked important for new
project member additions.
--
Mike No
Hi Nathan,
>> If the directory is populated we have to change our image script to
>> download the webconf packages from this location (this is a reminder for
>> myself ;).
>
> You already do, so no changes needed.
>
We use a script to download the lwp files from your CVS space for creation
of CD
Hi Eric & Mike,
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:03, Eric Spakman wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> Thanks!
>
> Who is going to put the available lwp packages in leaf/bin/config/webconf?
> Just a question.
I can take care of the ones that are in my devel area. (That would be all of
them, AFAIK)
> If the d
Hi Mike,
Yes to the first, the second needs some work ... :-)
-V
On 03/15/2006 02:11 PM, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 07:29, Venki Iyer wrote:
In any case, I did roll a 2.6-based version of Bering late last year
(started out as a project effort, turned into a labor of love
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:29, Eric Spakman wrote:
> Looks promising! Thanks for searching.
Eric,
You're most welcome. I'm glad I was able to locate something that might
prove useful. :-)
> >>> This would be the same sort of setup we would use:
> >>> fdisk the pendrive, make it bootable, copy the c
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:20, Eric Spakman wrote:
> Instead of creating a new branch, we can also join effort?
Eric,
Yes. That is always an option. :-)
> > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 07:29, Venki Iyer wrote:
> >> In any case, I did roll a 2.6-based version of Bering late last year
> >> (started out as
Hello Mike,
Looks promising! Thanks for searching.
Eric
>>> This would be the same sort of setup we would use:
>>> fdisk the pendrive, make it bootable, copy the contents, syslinux it
>>> and edit some files. This is no image setup and that's where I'm
>>> looking after.
>>
>> Ok. I'll see
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:59, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:09, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > > http://wiki.debian.org/BootUsb
> > >
> > This would be the same sort of setup we would use:
> > fdisk the pendrive, make it bootable, copy the contents, syslinux it and
> > edit some files. This
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:03, Eric Spakman wrote:
> Who is going to put the available lwp packages in leaf/bin/config/webconf?
> Just a question.
Eric,
It depends on who we want to grant write access to in avail. Existing
binary lwp packages, already stored elsewhere in our repository, will
require
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 07:29, Venki Iyer wrote:
> In any case, I did roll a 2.6-based version of Bering late last year
> (started out as a project effort, turned into a labor of love - thanks
> guys!), could probably push it back into one of the project trees if
> there is any interest. I'm not s
Hello Mike,
Thanks!
Who is going to put the available lwp packages in leaf/bin/config/webconf?
Just a question.
If the directory is populated we have to change our image script to
download the webconf packages from this location (this is a reminder for
myself ;).
Eric
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 11
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 11:13, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:54, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> > That way a developer could also upload a binary lwp (or lrp, yes, there are
> > webconf lrps)
>
> Ah. I missed the bin/ in Eric's post. Not something that I'd have missed
> before. :-(
>
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:54, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 March 2006 13:40, Mike Noyes wrote:
> I'm ok with it; although it should probably be combined with Eric's
> suggestion of leaf/bin/config/webconf
>
> That way a developer could also upload a binary lwp (or lrp, yes, there are
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:09, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/BootUsb
> >
> This would be the same sort of setup we would use:
> fdisk the pendrive, make it bootable, copy the contents, syslinux it and
> edit some files. This is no image setup and that's where I'm looking
> after.
Er
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 13:40, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:09, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> > What's NOT in leaf/src/config/webconf is all of the .lwp's (anything
> > beyond webconf.lrp / webconf.lwp)Perhaps there's a place for them in
> > the same spot.
>
> Nathan,
> How abou
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:34, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > What's NOT in leaf/src/config/webconf is all of the .lwp's (anything
> > beyond webconf.lrp / webconf.lwp)Perhaps there's a place for them in
> > the same spot.
> >
> leaf/bin/config/webconf?
> Mike, do you agree?
Eric,
Either location is a
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:09, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> What's NOT in leaf/src/config/webconf is all of the .lwp's (anything beyond
> webconf.lrp / webconf.lwp)Perhaps there's a place for them in the same
> spot.
Nathan,
How about a new directory in src/config called lwp? We can open that
di
Hello Nathan,
>>> Also it would be
>>> nice if the contents of Nathan's CVS space could be moved to a more
>>> generic place (I think we need Kp for this).
>>
>> This requires opening a SR with the SF staff. Any one of our project
>> admins can do this.
>
> Clarfication -
>
>
> webconf (the core)
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 09:58, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> I fully recognize that nobody else is stepping up as "Documentation/Website
> Admin", and we all appreciate the job you are doing.
Nathan,
Unfortunately, I'm not doing a very good job. :-(
> On Wednesday 15 March 2006 11:02, Mike Noyes wrote
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 12:48, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > Also it would be
> > nice if the contents of Nathan's CVS space could be moved to a more
> > generic place (I think we need Kp for this).
>
> This requires opening a SR with the SF staff. Any one of our project
> admins can do this.
Clarficat
Hello Mike,
>
>> -Does someone know how to create an image which can be installed on a
>> USB-flash key? Is there some sort of tool (GPL) available which creates
>> such an image and/or makes a flash disk bootable?
>
> I think DSL has documentation on this.
>
>
> http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/
Mike,
I fully recognize that nobody else is stepping up as "Documentation/Website
Admin", and we all appreciate the job you are doing. I hope you'll take
these as comments of what one person sees could make things a little better.
Its just my perspective - and you are more than welcome to
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 08:57, Eric Spakman wrote:
> To get things going: can you make a link from the mainpage to the lwp
> development documentation in the Bering-uClibc section?
Eric,
I think an article for the hub is in order. That would give links and
information. KP or I can post it, but I thi
Hello Mike,
>>> I agree. I thought this content was incorporated into the
>>> bering-uclibc documentation. :-(
>>
>> It is:
>> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/buc-devel.html
>> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/buc-install.html
>>
>
> Eric,
> Hum, a google search using "site:leaf.sourcef
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 08:03, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > I agree. I thought this content was incorporated into the bering-uclibc
> > documentation. :-(
>
> It is:
> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/buc-devel.html
> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/buc-install.html
Eric,
Hum, a google search
Hello Mike,
>> To get to these links, I went to http://leaf.sourceforge.net ->
>> Developers (box at top) -> Angelacos, Nathan (What's Related Box) ->
>> Webconf
>> (UI Box) Not exactly where I would look it I wanted to develop a web
>> interface for LEAF
>
> I agree. I thought this content was
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 07:09, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. März 2006 15:48 schrieb Mike Noyes:
> > Have you or anyone else on the bering-uclibc team asked for help?
>
> Yes, the framework and the lack of lwp's has been mentioned from to time on
> the leaf lists.
KP,
Do you have a pla
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 07:22, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
> > Have you or anyone else on the bering-uclibc team asked for help?
>
> I have. If you have time, please search the mailing lists for the words
> "webconf development" [BTW - Webconf isn't just bering-uClibc - it works
> with classic Ber
I'm sort of echoing Mike's comment here, but I started to move away from
LEAF because a) it remained "floppy" centric, b) no 2.6 support, c) the
ipkg guys have come up with a good scheme for automatable over the wire
updates.
On the other hand, I still do like the "liveCD" aspects, if stand
Mike,
> Eric,
> Have you or anyone else on the bering-uclibc team asked for help?
I have. If you have time, please search the mailing lists for the words
"webconf development" [BTW - Webconf isn't just bering-uClibc - it works
with classic Bering as well. Please don't blame lack of exposur
Am Mittwoch, 15. März 2006 15:48 schrieb Mike Noyes:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 01:43, Eric Spakman wrote:
> > I think other projects are gaining users because they have a nice
> > webconf interface and are easier to setup by less advanced users, not
> > because they're technical better (in the contra
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 01:43, Eric Spakman wrote:
> I think other projects are gaining users because they have a nice
> webconf interface and are easier to setup by less advanced users, not
> because they're technical better (in the contrary). We have a nice
> webconf framework, written by Nathan, b
67 matches
Mail list logo
