Hi all, as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch. I'm using glibc 2.5 and gcc 4.1.1 from Johnannes' httpup-repo and made some bootstrap runs for all core-ports on a fresh partition, without any problems so far. Greetings Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
Juergen Daubert [2006-11-19 14:27]:
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
Did you forget to push these commits? They don't show up here ;) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:41:13PM +0100, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Juergen Daubert [2006-11-19 14:27]:
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
Did you forget to push these commits? They don't show up here ;)
Not that I'm aware of, see http://crux.nu/gitweb/?p=ports/core.git;a=shortlog;h=2.3 regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
Juergen Daubert [2006-11-19 15:05]:
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:41:13PM +0100, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Juergen Daubert [2006-11-19 14:27]:
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
Did you forget to push these commits? They don't show up here ;)
Not that I'm aware of, see http://crux.nu/gitweb/?p=ports/core.git;a=shortlog;h=2.3
Nevermind, I'm an idiot. I read into your original mail that you had committed the gcc and glibc updates. Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:27:25 +0100 Juergen Daubert <jue@jue.li> wrote:
Hi all,
Hey,
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
Good. Meanwhile I tested a bit branch merging (one of the reasons we moved to git); so far so good. To ease up maintainance of the branches I suggest we commit to 2.2 generic port updates, touching 2.3 only for specific, 2.3-related changes. This way we can periodically merge 2.2 updates with 2.3 with virtually no conflicts.
I'm using glibc 2.5 and gcc 4.1.1 from Johnannes' httpup-repo and made some bootstrap runs for all core-ports on a fresh partition, without any problems so far.
Sounds good. Just to recap, leaving out ports & kernel updates, these adjustements are needed for producing a working iso: - Add new setup script (groups+dependencies+xorg) - Adjust Makefile: - ports are no longer in the same dir and must be ckecked out from git repos - add a filter for opt ports to be included in the iso - setup-helper: x11-> xorg Not sure about the plan for merging with matt's livecd. If somebody - cough...system team...cough ;) - is interested in adjusting the Makefile please speak up, I see it as a top priority. As a relevant note, we created a 2.3 version on flyspray, so we can track to-do items in a more organized way[1] if I forgot something in the above list please add it to flyspray and set the 'Due in version' field to 2.3. [1] https://crux.nu/bugs/index.php?tasks=all&project=1&string=&type=&sev=&due=5&dev=&cat=&status=&date=0
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 03:06:21PM +0100, Simone Rota wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:27:25 +0100 Juergen Daubert <jue@jue.li> wrote:
Hi all,
Hey,
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
Good. Meanwhile I tested a bit branch merging (one of the reasons we moved to git); so far so good.
To ease up maintainance of the branches I suggest we commit to 2.2 generic port updates, touching 2.3 only for specific, 2.3-related changes. This way we can periodically merge 2.2 updates with 2.3 with virtually no conflicts.
Yep, fine idea. I thought the same as I saw your first merge yesterday. All my commits till now are of that kind, meaning I wouldn't see them as candidates for 2.2, because they are incompatible like db and expat or need further testing like bash, automake or gettext. regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:06:21 +0100 Simone Rota <sip@varlock.com> wrote:
Just to recap, leaving out ports & kernel updates, these adjustements are needed for producing a working iso:
- Add new setup script (groups+dependencies+xorg) - Adjust Makefile: - ports are no longer in the same dir and must be ckecked out from git repos - add a filter for opt ports to be included in the iso - setup-helper: x11-> xorg
Not sure about the plan for merging with matt's livecd.
If somebody - cough...system team...cough ;) - is interested in adjusting the Makefile please speak up, I see it as a top priority.
Regarding Makefile adjustment: can someone provide a tiny README file or a wiki page, giving some details on how to build up-to-date 2.2 and bleeding edge 2.3 pre-release install iso? And by the way, what is the status of utilization of "make headers_install" feature in the 2.3 Makefile? (I am interested because it should be possible to backport (cut-n-paste) such a thing to get current 2.2 iso with the latest kernel/headers.) -- Mikhail Kolesnik ICQ: 260259143 IRC: mike_k at freenode/#crux, rusnet/#yalta Jabber: mike_k@jabber.lafox.net NIC handle: MKK83-UANIC
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 15:34:51 +0200, Mikhail Kolesnik wrote: [...]
And by the way, what is the status of utilization of "make headers_install" feature in the 2.3 Makefile? (I am interested because it should be possible to backport (cut-n-paste) such a thing to get current 2.2 iso with the latest kernel/headers.)
The kernel headers are part of the glibc port, not the ISO makefile, so getting updated headers on your 2.2 install should be easy. There are extracted headers for 2.6.18 available from http://crux.nu/files/dist/kernel-headers-2.6.18.tar.bz2 extracted using the following script (calling headers_install) http://crux.nu/gitweb/?p=misc/scripts.git;a=blob;f=gen-kernel-header-tarball The script will be simplified in the future, but 2.6.18 didn't include unifdef itself, so that's downloaded there as well. HTH, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 14:45 +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 15:34:51 +0200, Mikhail Kolesnik wrote: [...]
And by the way, what is the status of utilization of "make headers_install" feature in the 2.3 Makefile? (I am interested because it should be possible to backport (cut-n-paste) such a thing to get current 2.2 iso with the latest kernel/headers.)
The kernel headers are part of the glibc port, not the ISO makefile, so getting updated headers on your 2.2 install should be easy. There are extracted headers for 2.6.18 available from http://crux.nu/files/dist/kernel-headers-2.6.18.tar.bz2 extracted using the following script (calling headers_install) http://crux.nu/gitweb/?p=misc/scripts.git;a=blob;f=gen-kernel-header-tarball
The script will be simplified in the future, but 2.6.18 didn't include unifdef itself, so that's downloaded there as well.
There are patches floating on the net to include unifdef in the kernel source, Linux From Scratch being one of the users. It has been integrated in the 2.6.19-rc's, but glibc 2.5 (and other things using the headers) won't compile with those, probably because of netdev changes.
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:27:25PM +0100, Juergen Daubert wrote:
Hi all,
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
I'm using glibc 2.5 and gcc 4.1.1 from Johnannes' httpup-repo and made some bootstrap runs for all core-ports on a fresh partition, without any problems so far.
Sorry, forgot to mention strace and util-linux, which I got from Johannes' repo as well. regards Jürgen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 14:27 +0100, Juergen Daubert wrote:
Hi all,
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
I'm using glibc 2.5 and gcc 4.1.1 from Johnannes' httpup-repo and made some bootstrap runs for all core-ports on a fresh partition, without any problems so far.
fakeroot doesn't yet wrap the openat syscalls which coreutils will use if built against glibc >= 2.5. Debian is stuck at 2.3.6, so it will probably be a while before we see this fixed upstream. This means that (at least) chgrp and chown won't work under fakeroot.
Mark Rosenstand [2006-11-19 23:31]:
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 14:27 +0100, Juergen Daubert wrote:
as you might have already seen, I've commited some updates for core-ports to our 2.3 branch.
I'm using glibc 2.5 and gcc 4.1.1 from Johnannes' httpup-repo and made some bootstrap runs for all core-ports on a fresh partition, without any problems so far.
fakeroot doesn't yet wrap the openat syscalls which coreutils will use if built against glibc >= 2.5. Debian is stuck at 2.3.6, so it will probably be a while before we see this fixed upstream.
Although I have never looked at fakeroot code I'd guess this is fairly easy to implement :) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
participants (6)
-
Johannes Winkelmann -
Juergen Daubert -
Mark Rosenstand -
Mikhail Kolesnik -
Simone Rota -
Tilman Sauerbeck