[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Rafael A Barrero]

Hi guys;

New to the list... and to buildroot. I've been working with embedded linux
on the application side, but never really dug too deep enough to build my
own system until now. I also wanted to say thanks for all the hard work.

BusyBox seems to build against DHCP 3.0.4, but the FTP server at ISC
doesn't seem to host that version in the /isc/dhcp/ directory any longer
(moved to /isc/dhcp/dhcp-3.0-history/ now). Does anyone have any
experience building dhcp 3.0.5 instead of 3.0.4? Any problems?

Also, I was getting a make error "CONFIG_SYSLOGD: redefined". Has anyone
seen this?

Rafael.

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Rafael A Barrero]

Same goes for DirectFB... DirectFB-0.9.25.1.tar.gz is no longer available,
new version is 1.0.0-rc2.tar.gz. Thoughts?



> Hi guys;
>
> New to the list... and to buildroot. I've been working with embedded linux
> on the application side, but never really dug too deep enough to build my
> own system until now. I also wanted to say thanks for all the hard work.
>
> BusyBox seems to build against DHCP 3.0.4, but the FTP server at ISC
> doesn't seem to host that version in the /isc/dhcp/ directory any longer
> (moved to /isc/dhcp/dhcp-3.0-history/ now). Does anyone have any
> experience building dhcp 3.0.5 instead of 3.0.4? Any problems?
>
> Also, I was getting a make error "CONFIG_SYSLOGD: redefined". Has anyone
> seen this?
>
> Rafael.
>
>

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Pavel Roskin]

Hello!

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 22:38 +0100, Rafael A Barrero wrote:
> Same goes for DirectFB... DirectFB-0.9.25.1.tar.gz is no longer available,
> new version is 1.0.0-rc2.tar.gz. Thoughts?

I'd like to see buildroot become a distribution over time.  As a
distribution, every release of buildroot would provide a fixed set of
packages, perhaps with security and stability fixes added over time.
For the distribution release to remain buildable, the project would have
to mirror all the packages used in every release.

Since we are not there yet, the only solution is to keep up with the
updates.  Somebody with plenty of computing resources should build the
"full" configuration from time to time and report breakage, ideally
accompanied by the patches.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Marc Lindahl]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> I'd like to see buildroot become a distribution over time.

I thought buildroot was a distribution building system, not an actual 
distribution...

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Pavel Roskin]

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 17:37 -0500, Marc Lindahl wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > I'd like to see buildroot become a distribution over time.
> 
> I thought buildroot was a distribution building system, not an actual 
> distribution...

OK, let's call it a distribution building system.  Once Buildroot 1 is
released and the work starts on Buildroot 2, Buildroot 1 needs to remain
functional for some time.

It could be updated for security, but updating it just to reflect
changes on the Web (such as new download locations) would be too much
work.

Of course, the task of mirroring could be relegated to the creators of
the specific distributions, but I think the buildroot project shouldn't
miss an opportunity to become more relevant to the embedded community.

There are cases when stability of the platform is highly desirable.  If
buildroot itself provides it, we'll see more people dealing with it
directly rather than through distributions based on some old snapshot.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Rafael A Barrero]

Hi;

I agree that buildroot should take step forward in this direction. A
"distribution building system" should be able to maintain a stable process
for creating these distributions, no?

I for example have just begun to work with buildroot and I'm coming across
missing software distributions or software distributions that simply do
not compile.

For example - gettext-0.14.6 does not compile... what do you guys suggest?
Do I remove it from my list? Use an alternate version? Fix the bug?

Does anyone have a known-good list somewhere (for x86 targets)? What
versions allow buildroot to compile cleanly? Completely?

I certainly don't mind pitching a hand... I've got some spare systems and
could put together a quick test matrix. Thoughts?

Thanks,

Rafael.

> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 17:37 -0500, Marc Lindahl wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> > I'd like to see buildroot become a distribution over time.
>>
>> I thought buildroot was a distribution building system, not an actual
>> distribution...
>
> OK, let's call it a distribution building system.  Once Buildroot 1 is
> released and the work starts on Buildroot 2, Buildroot 1 needs to remain
> functional for some time.
>
> It could be updated for security, but updating it just to reflect
> changes on the Web (such as new download locations) would be too much
> work.
>
> Of course, the task of mirroring could be relegated to the creators of
> the specific distributions, but I think the buildroot project shouldn't
> miss an opportunity to become more relevant to the embedded community.
>
> There are cases when stability of the platform is highly desirable.  If
> buildroot itself provides it, we'll see more people dealing with it
> directly rather than through distributions based on some old snapshot.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Pavel Roskin]

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 02:13 +0100, Rafael A Barrero wrote:
> Hi;
> 
> I agree that buildroot should take step forward in this direction. A
> "distribution building system" should be able to maintain a stable process
> for creating these distributions, no?

I was only talking about availability of the packages.  Stability has
other aspects.

Some packages may be incompatible with the latest compilers or with
certain targets.  For example, gcc 4.1.1 won't compile acpid without a
minor patch (and the complication is that acpid.mk doesn't know how to
apply).  Adding support for new compilers is likely to affect some
packages.

Also, uClibc snapshots have options that affect some of the packages.
For instance, unselecting fnmatch() support would break Busybox.  The
build system should incorporate this knowledge an help users make the
best choices.

Buildroot offers diverse options and supports a magnitude of packages.
It's almost unavoidable that something would be broken.  I think the
priority should be to improve the infrastructure to reduce brokenness
and to exclude known bad configurations.  That includes adding a
testsuite.

Releases could have more rigid constraints than the development code.
In particular, use of snapshots of Busybox and uClibc should be strongly
discouraged in the releases.

Maybe we could have an option to disallow selection of snapshots,
something like CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL in Linux?

> I for example have just begun to work with buildroot and I'm coming across
> missing software distributions or software distributions that simply do
> not compile.
> 
> For example - gettext-0.14.6 does not compile... what do you guys suggest?
> Do I remove it from my list? Use an alternate version? Fix the bug?

It depends on your priorities.  The best approach for everybody would be
to have the problem fixed, but it may take more of your time.

> Does anyone have a known-good list somewhere (for x86 targets)? What
> versions allow buildroot to compile cleanly? Completely?

I don't have such list.  If the problem is just with the packages, you
can enable all of them and then disable those that don't compile.  That
would give you the known-good list for your compiler.

> I certainly don't mind pitching a hand... I've got some spare systems and
> could put together a quick test matrix. Thoughts?

Posting the list of broken packages would be a great start.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

[Buildroot] new DHCP version and make error

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:27:39PM +0100, Rafael A Barrero wrote:
>Hi guys;
>
>New to the list... and to buildroot. I've been working with embedded linux
>on the application side, but never really dug too deep enough to build my
>own system until now. I also wanted to say thanks for all the hard work.
>
>BusyBox seems to build against DHCP 3.0.4, but the FTP server at ISC

Busybox does definitely _not_ build against DHCP 3.0.4 :)
Busybox has it's own dhcp impl which i recommend to use. If you have
trouble with udhcp from busybox then let me point you to the busybox
list.

HTH,
Bernhard