Re: Incompatibility of udev and /usr
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 12:33 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: I think that the idea of doing away with /usr and just installing everything into / is interesting as it would simplify the structure of the directories. I also think that making the change would be like poking yourself in the eye with a stick; painful and with no obvious benefit. There would be a million things that would need patching because they were looking for /usr/bin/perl or whatever. With no strong reason to make the change it's difficult to summon the energy to do the work. Yes, that was my thought too. It *would* simplify the directory structures, and in most cases wouldn't be too hard to do, just passing --prefix=/ to everything. But really, I wouldn't be gaining anything for the effort... Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Incompatibility of udev and /usr
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 13:41 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: On 04/17/2011 01:31 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: Anyway, udev starts 4th in the startup scripts, it runs across a uevent that uses a rule found in /usr, and it fails to create the device node. Errit creates the device node, but fails to run whatever program in /usr that is required to make it work with the system correctly. Yes, that sounds right. In the audio example, the device will be detected and a /dev node created, but because the rule that tags it as a speaker didn't work, it then won't be recognised by some userspace application (pulse-audio / gstreamer / alsa?), and the user won't be able to use their USB-connected speakers until they unplug and reconnect them... Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: kernel section mismatch warning, can't find patch
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: bsquared wrote: Hello; I got three different section mismatch warnings. I found patches for two, but I am not finding any for this one. LD drivers/built-in.o WARNING: drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x10539d): Section mismatch in reference from the function parport_pc_probe_port() to the function .init.text:platform_device_register_resndata() The function parport_pc_probe_port() references the function __init platform_device_register_resndata(). This is often because parport_pc_probe_port lacks a __init annotation or the annotation of platform_device_register_resndata is wrong. Does anyone know what to do about it? Unless you need the parallel port, turn it off in the kernel config. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page What if it is needed? Is there no patch? -- Thank you, -Brian -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Kernel options help
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: There is definitely something wrong. On a production LFS system running in a virtual envronment, I get: real 0m18.514s user 0m8.984s sys 0m2.697s I'm still having the same problems after recompiling the kernel a few times with different options. Ken, I don't know how to check against the 32 v 64 bit. uname reports: Linux hojo-lfs-6.8 2.6.38.2-LFS6.8 #1 SMP Mon Apr 18 20:35:16 MDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I have picked out a shell script that runs very slowly from the configure script from openssh. On a stable system the script runs as fast as expected: Script: #LS nuisances. for as_var in \ LANG LANGUAGE LC_ADDRESS LC_ALL LC_COLLATE LC_CTYPE LC_IDENTIFICATION \ LC_MEASUREMENT LC_MESSAGES LC_MONETARY LC_NAME LC_NUMERIC LC_PAPER \ LC_TELEPHONE LC_TIME do if (set +x; test -z `(eval $as_var=C; export $as_var) 21`); then eval $as_var=C; export $as_var else ($as_unset $as_var) /dev/null 21 $as_unset $as_var fi done The time on the script my box: real0m5.780s user0m0.030s sys 0m5.710s I have to run this script in a loop roughly 300 times on the stable box to approximate the LFS run. If I run this in a loop on the LFS box top shows the following while bash only consumes around 7 to 9% of the cpu and a scant of memory. Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 25.7%sy, 0.2%ni, 74.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st I'm not sure why you want multiple CPUs in a virtual environment when you can clone a new one for each task. I'm not sure how to do that. Do you have a hint or page to refer me to? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
