On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 17:35 -0500, linas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 01:39:13PM -0700, Dave Hansen was heard to remark:
> > I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
> > don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
> >
> > Which added CROSS_COMPILE to
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 01:39:13PM -0700, Dave Hansen was heard to remark:
> I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
> don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
>
> Which added CROSS_COMPILE to each arch's install.sh:
>
> if [ -x
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 01:39:13PM -0700, Dave Hansen was heard to remark:
I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
Which added CROSS_COMPILE to each arch's install.sh:
if [ -x
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 17:35 -0500, linas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 01:39:13PM -0700, Dave Hansen was heard to remark:
I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
Which added CROSS_COMPILE to each
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 05:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 09:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > Could we do something that's guaranteed to not have lots of extra
> > path
> > > elements in it, like ARCH?
> >
> > Or perhaps basename ${CROSSCOMPILE}?
>
> The only problem with
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 09:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Could we do something that's guaranteed to not have lots of extra
> path
> > elements in it, like ARCH?
>
> Or perhaps basename ${CROSSCOMPILE}?
The only problem with that is that some people do really have a cross
compiler named
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 13:39 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
> don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
>
>
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 13:39 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 09:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
Could we do something that's guaranteed to not have lots of extra
path
elements in it, like ARCH?
Or perhaps basename ${CROSSCOMPILE}?
The only problem with that is that some people do really have a cross
compiler named
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 05:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 09:50 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
Could we do something that's guaranteed to not have lots of extra
path
elements in it, like ARCH?
Or perhaps basename ${CROSSCOMPILE}?
The only problem with that is that
I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
http://www.kernel.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0f8e2d62fa04441cd12c08ce521e84e5bd3f8a46
Which added CROSS_COMPILE to each
I noticed that my cross-compilation 'make install' broke with 2.6.13 (I
don't use it horribly often). It's from this commit:
http://www.kernel.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0f8e2d62fa04441cd12c08ce521e84e5bd3f8a46
Which added CROSS_COMPILE to each
12 matches
Mail list logo
