On 2012-11-09 00:56, Peter Stuge wrote: > > Well that's why you specify --prefix when configuring. Look into what > it does! :) >
Thanks Peter, for the nice explanations and examples! Heh, `--prefix` should have an obvious meaning indeed ;) I cannot tell you why also that freaks me out a bit; I guess it's a case of "if you got burned by milk once - you will blow on yoghurt, too" :) At least I'm encouraged now not to fear it too much, next time I bump into it... > One easy way to discover what it does is to run the following as a > normal user (not root): > Top snippet - good to have it this thread, where I can find it ... > If you are consistent and never run make install as root, only as > regular user, then you can always know which build is being run, > because you will always need to explicitly specify if you want to run > something other than what was installed by the package manager. Wasn't really aware of this difference due to running as root; I need to explore this a bit more, sounds pretty usable to me... > Insert rant about behavior of the debian tool here. I am not a debian > fan and I was never very impressed by the tools. The problem is > caused by the debian tool. You're right - though before this comment, I would have probably said that it's a problem with "Linux" :) I am trying not to get too invested into knowing details about different distributions, as it always eats a lot of my time; but, I guess, there always comes a point where one bumps into problems, so these details cannot be ignored anymore... > I would highly recommend doing a Linux From Scratch install of a > simple system. Indeed, that seems to be the way; however, that requires more time than I have available in the next coming months.. > Well the thing is that the instructions are exactly the same for all > packages that use autotools. Never package-specific. IMO the best is > to go to the autoconf documentation for reference information. Yeah, I guess I should actually learn autoconf/autotools too; it's nice that, even with being ignorant about it, things were working for me so far - but I'm bound to bump into repeated problems, if it stays that way.. On 2012-11-09 08:13, Bert Vermeulen wrote: > On 08/11/12 21:23, sdaau wrote: > >>> http://sdaaubckp.sourceforge.net/attenload >> > > Indeed, that's very interesting for us! Particularly the fact that this > is one of the EasyScope-supported devices -- something we don't yet have > support for. That's potentially quite a few scopes. > Thanks for the response, Bart - and glad to hear that! > It looks like you're in the early stages of reverse-engineering the > protocol yet -- replaying stuff you saw on the wire exactly, not yet > grokking the entire protcol. Exactly :) > I'd encourage you to delve deeper, there's > quite a bit of structure there. Some ASCII even! :-) > The only thing I noticed as ASCII so far is that the signature of the oscilloscope headers is DSOPPV20 - I guess it states the firmware version as V20 :) > Would you be interested in joining forces, and writing a sigrok driver? I would most definitely be interested; but the problem is that I have a project in the next months, where one of the things I need is "publication quality" oscilloscope measurements (therefore all that `gnuplot` stuff, to confirm valid data is obtained). And since before this scope, I had used `agiload` with an Agilent to do "one-click" captures - I got so irritated something similar wasn't available for the Atten, I thought it's worth the time to code an app (_so I'm not pissed every time I sit down to measure :) also a good exercise, too_) Had I known `sigrok` previously, I would have probably jumped directly into it - although, judging by my limited browsing of the wiki, "knowing `sigrok`" is not necessarily trivial: to begin with, I'd have to learn better the usage of `sigrok-cli` vs. its GUI's... I'd also have to install Python 3 (and re-learn its peculiarities), and I'd probably bump into other obstacles as well - all of which may take a lot more time than I have (and for the time being, I need to focus on doing actual measurements with the scope) > You're welcome to get on IRC at freenode.net, channel #sigrok. This is > where the development really happens. We're happy to help out. As you > can tell from the sigrok wiki, we tend to go through protocols rather > mercilessly (most of them were reverse-engineered). > Many thanks for this - once my project is over, I'll hopefully have more time to contribute... Btw, just one question: given that `sigrok` is cross platform - then for a case like this, one should use `sigrok` to sniff the USB traffic between EasyScope and the device under 'doze, instead of doing UsbSnoop like I did; is that correct? Thanks again for the nice discussion, Cheers! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ sigrok-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel
