linux distribution ?

linux distribution ?

[Dulloor]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 365 bytes --]

Keir et al -

I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up spending
half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on moving to
jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then python version).

Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I am
interested in is xen development/test environment.

-dulloor

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 388 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Patrick Colp]

It varies from person to person. I use Ubuntu 9.04 for my dev box (not 
running Xen) and Ubuntu 8.10 for my test box (running xen-unstable).


Patrick


Dulloor wrote:
> Keir et al -
> 
> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up spending
> half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on moving to
> jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then python version).
> 
> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I am
> interested in is xen development/test environment.
> 
> -dulloor
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Dulloor]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

I had few issues moving from 8.10 to 9.04 today. Many like me don't have
separate dev and test boxes, and at the same time can't stay with an old
distro. Since there is no preferred distro, thats fine. Thanks.

-dulloor

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Patrick Colp <Patrick.Colp@citrix.com>wrote:

> It varies from person to person. I use Ubuntu 9.04 for my dev box (not
> running Xen) and Ubuntu 8.10 for my test box (running xen-unstable).
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> Dulloor wrote:
>
>> Keir et al -
>>
>> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
>> spending
>> half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on moving to
>> jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then python version).
>>
>> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I am
>> interested in is xen development/test environment.
>>
>> -dulloor
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1781 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Tim Post]

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
> Keir et al -
> 
> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
> spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
> moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
> python version).
> 
> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
> am interested in is xen development/test environment.
> 
> -dulloor

You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.

I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
experimental patches.

The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.

When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
backwards, etc).

There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
version is needed).

For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.

It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.

It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
is needed to build.

Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
anyway.

This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.

Cheers,
--Tim

Re: linux distribution ?

[Dulloor]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2329 bytes --]

I build everything from unstable-hg and jeremy's pvops-git. Problem is only
with the extraneous things like python version, very old kernel-base, etc,
which is not exactly xen's problem anyway.

A configure script will be helpful.

-dulloor

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us> wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
> > Keir et al -
> >
> > I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
> > spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
> > moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
> > python version).
> >
> > Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
> > am interested in is xen development/test environment.
> >
> > -dulloor
>
> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
>
> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
> experimental patches.
>
> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
>
> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
> backwards, etc).
>
> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
> version is needed).
>
> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
>
> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
>
> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
> is needed to build.
>
> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
> anyway.
>
> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
>
> Cheers,
> --Tim
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2889 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Tim Post]

Sorry for top posting, another case in point:

Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
be a good idea.

Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.

The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.

Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
--enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
would anyone else on this list.

Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
failure', make help could be advertised.

Cheers,
--Tim

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
> > Keir et al -
> > 
> > I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
> > spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
> > moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
> > python version).
> > 
> > Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
> > am interested in is xen development/test environment.
> > 
> > -dulloor
> 
> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
> 
> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
> experimental patches.
> 
> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
> 
> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
> backwards, etc).
> 
> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
> version is needed).
> 
> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
> 
> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
> 
> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
> is needed to build.
> 
> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
> anyway.
> 
> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
> 
> Cheers,
> --Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Dulloor]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3735 bytes --]

  Is anyone able to boot 2.6.18-xen on 9.04 ubuntu (pvops is fine).

- mountroot in my initramfs fails, cause udev doesn't set up any block
/dev/<...>.
- All required modules seem to be loaded (checked both in scripts and at
initramfs shell), but obviously something is missing in 2.6.18

-dulloor

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us> wrote:

> Sorry for top posting, another case in point:
>
> Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
> warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
> be a good idea.
>
> Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.
>
> The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
> becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.
>
> Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
> --enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
> Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
> would anyone else on this list.
>
> Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
> i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
> failure', make help could be advertised.
>
> Cheers,
> --Tim
>
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
> > > Keir et al -
> > >
> > > I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
> > > spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
> > > moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
> > > python version).
> > >
> > > Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
> > > am interested in is xen development/test environment.
> > >
> > > -dulloor
> >
> > You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
> > which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
> >
> > I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
> > flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
> > experimental patches.
> >
> > The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
> > of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
> >
> > When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
> > faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
> > packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
> > backwards, etc).
> >
> > There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
> > and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
> > user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
> > version is needed).
> >
> > For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
> >
> > It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
> > makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
> > generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
> >
> > It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
> > a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
> > is needed to build.
> >
> > Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
> > anyway.
> >
> > This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4897 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Dulloor]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3957 bytes --]

Forgot to mention, its x86_64.

-dulloor

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Dulloor <dulloor@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Is anyone able to boot 2.6.18-xen on 9.04 ubuntu (pvops is fine).
>
> - mountroot in my initramfs fails, cause udev doesn't set up any block
> /dev/<...>.
> - All required modules seem to be loaded (checked both in scripts and at
> initramfs shell), but obviously something is missing in 2.6.18
>
> -dulloor
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for top posting, another case in point:
>>
>> Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
>> warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
>> be a good idea.
>>
>> Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.
>>
>> The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
>> becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.
>>
>> Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
>> --enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
>> Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
>> would anyone else on this list.
>>
>> Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
>> i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
>> failure', make help could be advertised.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --Tim
>>
>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
>> > > Keir et al -
>> > >
>> > > I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
>> > > spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
>> > > moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
>> > > python version).
>> > >
>> > > Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
>> > > am interested in is xen development/test environment.
>> > >
>> > > -dulloor
>> >
>> > You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
>> > which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
>> >
>> > I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
>> > flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
>> > experimental patches.
>> >
>> > The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
>> > of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
>> >
>> > When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
>> > faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
>> > packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
>> > backwards, etc).
>> >
>> > There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
>> > and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
>> > user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
>> > version is needed).
>> >
>> > For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
>> >
>> > It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
>> > makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
>> > generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
>> >
>> > It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
>> > a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
>> > is needed to build.
>> >
>> > Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
>> > anyway.
>> >
>> > This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > --Tim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Xen-devel mailing list
>> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5374 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Patrick Colp]

Yes, I was able to do it. I only down-graded my test box to 8.10 because
I didn't want to deal with python stuff (and to make sure that errors I
got when running my code was because of my code and not some sort of
weird incompatibility).

Sometimes the 2.6.18 driver gets confused with sata stuff. If both the
regular (pata) and sata drivers are installed, it will pick the wrong
one. I forget which way around you want to make it... I think you want
to have the sata ones only, but I'll check in the morning.

If you're not sure which driver you're needing, do an lspci and it'll
say which IDE system you have (or just remove all pata/ide drivers in
the kernel config and try again, but you will probably have to remove
/lib/modules/2.6.18.8-xen first, to make sure the old one doesn't stick
around by accident).


Patrick


Dulloor wrote:
>   Is anyone able to boot 2.6.18-xen on 9.04 ubuntu (pvops is fine).
> 
> - mountroot in my initramfs fails, cause udev doesn't set up any block
> /dev/<...>.
> - All required modules seem to be loaded (checked both in scripts and at
> initramfs shell), but obviously something is missing in 2.6.18
> 
> -dulloor
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry for top posting, another case in point:
>>
>> Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
>> warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
>> be a good idea.
>>
>> Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.
>>
>> The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
>> becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.
>>
>> Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
>> --enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
>> Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
>> would anyone else on this list.
>>
>> Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
>> i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
>> failure', make help could be advertised.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --Tim
>>
>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
>>>> Keir et al -
>>>>
>>>> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
>>>> spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
>>>> moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
>>>> python version).
>>>>
>>>> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
>>>> am interested in is xen development/test environment.
>>>>
>>>> -dulloor
>>> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and hypervisor),
>>> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
>>>
>>> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
>>> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
>>> experimental patches.
>>>
>>> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
>>> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
>>>
>>> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
>>> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
>>> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time going
>>> backwards, etc).
>>>
>>> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
>>> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
>>> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
>>> version is needed).
>>>
>>> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
>>>
>>> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
>>> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
>>> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
>>>
>>> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not be
>>> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
>>> is needed to build.
>>>
>>> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> --Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Dulloor]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5506 bytes --]

I hava a sata drive and actually I had taken care of the driver part
(afaik). I cross-verified /proc/modules in initramfs.
When I tried restarting udevd (on initramfs shell), it warns about
deprecated sysfs.

It does make sense for even me to downgrade back to 8.10.
But, to figure this out, can you please send over your .config ?

-dulloor

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Colp <pjcolp@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Yes, I was able to do it. I only down-graded my test box to 8.10 because
> I didn't want to deal with python stuff (and to make sure that errors I
> got when running my code was because of my code and not some sort of
> weird incompatibility).
>
> Sometimes the 2.6.18 driver gets confused with sata stuff. If both the
> regular (pata) and sata drivers are installed, it will pick the wrong
> one. I forget which way around you want to make it... I think you want
> to have the sata ones only, but I'll check in the morning.
>
> If you're not sure which driver you're needing, do an lspci and it'll
> say which IDE system you have (or just remove all pata/ide drivers in
> the kernel config and try again, but you will probably have to remove
> /lib/modules/2.6.18.8-xen first, to make sure the old one doesn't stick
> around by accident).
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> Dulloor wrote:
> >   Is anyone able to boot 2.6.18-xen on 9.04 ubuntu (pvops is fine).
> >
> > - mountroot in my initramfs fails, cause udev doesn't set up any block
> > /dev/<...>.
> > - All required modules seem to be loaded (checked both in scripts and at
> > initramfs shell), but obviously something is missing in 2.6.18
> >
> > -dulloor
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry for top posting, another case in point:
> >>
> >> Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
> >> warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
> >> be a good idea.
> >>
> >> Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.
> >>
> >> The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
> >> becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.
> >>
> >> Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
> >> --enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
> >> Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
> >> would anyone else on this list.
> >>
> >> Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
> >> i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
> >> failure', make help could be advertised.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> --Tim
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
> >>>> Keir et al -
> >>>>
> >>>> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
> >>>> spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
> >>>> moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
> >>>> python version).
> >>>>
> >>>> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
> >>>> am interested in is xen development/test environment.
> >>>>
> >>>> -dulloor
> >>> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and
> hypervisor),
> >>> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
> >>>
> >>> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
> >>> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
> >>> experimental patches.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
> >>> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
> >>>
> >>> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
> >>> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
> >>> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time
> going
> >>> backwards, etc).
> >>>
> >>> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
> >>> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
> >>> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
> >>> version is needed).
> >>>
> >>> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
> >>>
> >>> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
> >>> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
> >>> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
> >>>
> >>> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not
> be
> >>> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
> >>> is needed to build.
> >>>
> >>> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> --Tim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Xen-devel mailing list
> >>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> >>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Xen-devel mailing list
> >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7540 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Patrick Colp]

What exactly is the error you're getting?

Also, how are you building linux (what commands)? I checked my config and I 
have removed the ATA (PATA) driver and compiled the SATA driver into the 
kernel (not a module). I don't think sending you the config will help much 
as we may not have the same hardware (and I may have made other 
machine-specific changes to it... I can't remember).

How is your grub configured? Maybe it's a bad option there?


Patrick


Dulloor wrote:
> I hava a sata drive and actually I had taken care of the driver part
> (afaik). I cross-verified /proc/modules in initramfs.
> When I tried restarting udevd (on initramfs shell), it warns about
> deprecated sysfs.
> 
> It does make sense for even me to downgrade back to 8.10.
> But, to figure this out, can you please send over your .config ?
> 
> -dulloor
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Colp <pjcolp@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I was able to do it. I only down-graded my test box to 8.10 because
>> I didn't want to deal with python stuff (and to make sure that errors I
>> got when running my code was because of my code and not some sort of
>> weird incompatibility).
>>
>> Sometimes the 2.6.18 driver gets confused with sata stuff. If both the
>> regular (pata) and sata drivers are installed, it will pick the wrong
>> one. I forget which way around you want to make it... I think you want
>> to have the sata ones only, but I'll check in the morning.
>>
>> If you're not sure which driver you're needing, do an lspci and it'll
>> say which IDE system you have (or just remove all pata/ide drivers in
>> the kernel config and try again, but you will probably have to remove
>> /lib/modules/2.6.18.8-xen first, to make sure the old one doesn't stick
>> around by accident).
>>
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> Dulloor wrote:
>>>   Is anyone able to boot 2.6.18-xen on 9.04 ubuntu (pvops is fine).
>>>
>>> - mountroot in my initramfs fails, cause udev doesn't set up any block
>>> /dev/<...>.
>>> - All required modules seem to be loaded (checked both in scripts and at
>>> initramfs shell), but obviously something is missing in 2.6.18
>>>
>>> -dulloor
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry for top posting, another case in point:
>>>>
>>>> Depending on the distro, 'awk' might not work for configuring Linux. A
>>>> warning could be generated telling the user that installing 'gawk' might
>>>> be a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, we warn about the absence of hg, git, bcc, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is, if the 'check' script spews stderr to some file, that file
>>>> becomes a list of stuff that the user would (probably) want to install.
>>>>
>>>> Again, I am in NO way suggesting ./configure --enable-kernels
>>>> --enable-ocaml-stubdom , etc, nor am I suggesting that the script create
>>>> Makefiles. I could do that, I would NOT want to maintain it, neither
>>>> would anyone else on this list.
>>>>
>>>> Said script could also 'better advertise' other targets in the Makefile,
>>>> i.e. if Mercurial is not installed. At the least, as a 'general
>>>> failure', make help could be advertised.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> --Tim
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:27 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 05:53 -0400, Dulloor wrote:
>>>>>> Keir et al -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am on ubuntu and every time I upgrade my distro (dom-0), I end up
>>>>>> spending half-a-day getting xen working again, like this time on
>>>>>> moving to jaunty/karmic (problem booting 2.6.18 based xen and then
>>>>>> python version).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which distro do the xensource guys use for their development ? All I
>>>>>> am interested in is xen development/test environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -dulloor
>>>>> You might consider just building Xen from source (tools and
>> hypervisor),
>>>>> which takes it completely out of the scope of your package manager.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that is taboo in some circles, however it gives you greater
>>>>> flexibility when upgrading, while also giving you the ability to test
>>>>> experimental patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is, doing this often violates enterprise warranties. 99.9%
>>>>> of the time, I'd rather just trust my distro when it comes to packages.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to Xen, I usually recommend (and install) the latest
>>>>> faithful official release. The one and only time I just used distro
>>>>> packages was with Ubuntu Hardy (LTS) .. and that was chaotic (time
>> going
>>>>> backwards, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> There was once a universal installer script .. can that be resurrected
>>>>> and possibly rely on m4 being present for developers? Using that, the
>>>>> user knows with no uncertainty exactly what they are missing (and what
>>>>> version is needed).
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, a dependency on 32 bit stubs when building on x86_64.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not have to be named ./configure, it does not have to create
>>>>> makefiles and I am happy to maintain it. The drawback is 6k+ lines of
>>>>> generated shell code that has to be tracked in the hg.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be ... scripts/checkbuildconfig .. or whatever. It would not
>> be
>>>>> a configuration tool, just a diagnostic tool that offers hints on what
>>>>> is needed to build.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why clutter the Makefile needlessly? A script would be more portable,
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> This approach has solved this exact problem for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> --Tim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: linux distribution ?

[Michael David Crawford]

Everyone Knows That Real Men Run Gentoo:

    http://funroll-loops.info/

Be sure to scroll to the very bottom.

However, I have it on good authority that Chuck Norris runs Linux from 
Scratch.

Mike
-- 
Michael David Crawford
mdc@prgmr.com

    prgmr.com - We Don't Assume You Are Stupid.

       Xen-Powered Virtual Private Servers: http://prgmr.com/xen