Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
and this one:
http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/uml/patches/2.6.18-rc4/uml-x11-fb
which applied cleanly, but is not letting me set the option - Kconfig is
beyond me:
arch/um/Kconfig:144:warning: 'select' used by config symbol
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
> and this one:
> http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/uml/patches/2.6.18-rc4/uml-x11-fb
> which applied cleanly, but is not letting me set the option - Kconfig is
> beyond me:
>
> arch/um/Kconfig:144:warning: 'select' used by config symbol 'X11_FB' refer to
>
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
and this one:
http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/uml/patches/2.6.18-rc4/uml-x11-fb
which applied cleanly, but is not letting me set the option - Kconfig is
beyond me:
arch/um/Kconfig:144:warning: 'select' used by config symbol 'X11_FB' refer to
undefined
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
and this one:
http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/uml/patches/2.6.18-rc4/uml-x11-fb
which applied cleanly, but is not letting me set the option - Kconfig is
beyond me:
arch/um/Kconfig:144:warning: 'select' used by config symbol
Antoine Martin wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
There are patches floating around for a UML frame buffer device.
Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
great when I gave it a try.
I suggest taking a look
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:28:40AM +0200, roland wrote:
> what is the real advantage to package uml-kernel and rootfs into a single
> file ?
>
> If this needs to be distributed with additional script, that's two files,
> anyway.
If a common means of doing this were widespread, the script would
Blaisorblade wrote:
On lunedì 2 aprile 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
On lunedì 2 aprile 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
> >> I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
> >> user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
> >
> >
what is the real advantage to package uml-kernel and rootfs into a single
file ?
If this needs to be distributed with additional script, that's two files,
anyway.
the classical way would be 3 files: uml-kernel, rootfs, script - put into
some tar.gz or tar.bz2
this could look as elegant
what is the real advantage to package uml-kernel and rootfs into a single
file ?
If this needs to be distributed with additional script, that's two files,
anyway.
the classical way would be 3 files: uml-kernel, rootfs, script - put into
some tar.gz or tar.bz2
this could look as elegant
On lunedì 2 aprile 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
Why? I've never
Blaisorblade wrote:
On lunedì 2 aprile 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:28:40AM +0200, roland wrote:
what is the real advantage to package uml-kernel and rootfs into a single
file ?
If this needs to be distributed with additional script, that's two files,
anyway.
If a common means of doing this were widespread, the script would be
Antoine Martin wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
There are patches floating around for a UML frame buffer device.
Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
great when I gave it a try.
I suggest taking a look
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:44:34PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> There are sites (http://uml.nagafix.co.uk/ being the best one I know
> of) where, with two downloads, two uncompressions, and one command
> line later, you have a booted UML.
>
> The only way I know of to improve on this, aside from
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:40:10PM +0200, roland wrote:
> btw - i think besides that packaged uml+rootfs, the same thing could be
> distributed in other formats, i.e. qemu, vmware, M$ virtual pc (add your
> favourite v12n solution here)
There are sites (http://uml.nagafix.co.uk/ being the best
PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Blaisorblade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
;
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [RFC] UML kernel & rootfs bundle with every kernel
release ?
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Ma
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:43AM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
Just like the network auto-configuration via dhcp, it would allow users
to download images+kernel and run them like appliances without
understanding anything about X or UML, just click and run.
True, but I don't
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
There are patches floating around for a UML frame buffer device.
Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
great when I gave it a try.
I suggest taking a look at Gerd's patches.
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:43AM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Just like the network auto-configuration via dhcp, it would allow users
> to download images+kernel and run them like appliances without
> understanding anything about X or UML, just click and run.
True, but I don't see that as
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> There are patches floating around for a UML frame buffer device.
> Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
> great when I gave it a try.
>
> I suggest taking a look at Gerd's patches. IIRC, he
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
^^
Sorry, this should have been `Knorr'.
> great when I gave it a try.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
> >> I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
> >> user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
> >
> > Why?
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
Why? I've never understood what a framebuffer gives you that you
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
Why? I've never understood what a framebuffer gives you that you
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
Why? I've never
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
^^
Sorry, this should have been `Knorr'.
great when I gave it a try.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
There are patches floating around for a UML frame buffer device.
Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
great when I gave it a try.
I suggest taking a look at Gerd's patches. IIRC, he posted
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:43AM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
Just like the network auto-configuration via dhcp, it would allow users
to download images+kernel and run them like appliances without
understanding anything about X or UML, just click and run.
True, but I don't see that as
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:43AM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
Just like the network auto-configuration via dhcp, it would allow users
to download images+kernel and run them like appliances without
understanding anything about X or UML, just click and run.
True, but I don't
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:22:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
There are patches floating around for a UML frame buffer device.
Gerd Kraxel^H^H^H^H^H^HHoffmann did one using plain X11, which worked
great when I gave it a try.
I suggest taking a look at Gerd's patches.
PROTECTED];
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [RFC] UML kernel rootfs bundle with every kernel
release ?
Jeff Dike wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:40:10PM +0200, roland wrote:
btw - i think besides that packaged uml+rootfs, the same thing could be
distributed in other formats, i.e. qemu, vmware, M$ virtual pc (add your
favourite v12n solution here)
There are sites (http://uml.nagafix.co.uk/ being the best one
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:44:34PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
There are sites (http://uml.nagafix.co.uk/ being the best one I know
of) where, with two downloads, two uncompressions, and one command
line later, you have a booted UML.
The only way I know of to improve on this, aside from
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
> I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
> user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
Why? I've never understood what a framebuffer gives you that you
don't have now.
[...]
in short:
it`s quite some work to be done to have your uml 2.6.21 with root-fs up and
running and working cleanly. whenever i search the net for some appropriate
UML fs image, those i find are very often old and outdated...
Hmm... I'd think we need a wizard for configuration. Plus some
[...]
in short:
it`s quite some work to be done to have your uml 2.6.21 with root-fs up and
running and working cleanly. whenever i search the net for some appropriate
UML fs image, those i find are very often old and outdated...
Hmm... I'd think we need a wizard for configuration. Plus some
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 08:58:45PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
I reckon that one critical thing which could drastically increase the
user base would be to have a working virtual framebuffer implementation.
Why? I've never understood what a framebuffer gives you that you
don't have now.
38 matches
Mail list logo
