[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Bill Bogstad]

When I try to use buildroot to to generate a minimal init ramdisk for
i386, I get the following error if I try include the kexec package:

......
bin/bin-to-hex purgatory < purgatory/purgatory.ro > kexec/purgatory.c
/bin/sh: bin/bin-to-hex: not found
make[1]: *** [kexec/purgatory.c] Error 127
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/home/bogstad/software/buildroot/buildroot-2009.05/build_i386/kexec-2.0.0'
make: *** [/home/bogstad/software/buildroot/buildroot-2009.05/build_i386/kexec-2.0.0/.stamp_built]
Error

Does kexec build for any architecture in 2009.05?  Any suggestions on
making this work for i386?

Thanks,
Bill Bogstad

[Buildroot] SDL_net target name

[Julien Boibessot]

Hi,

Makefile target name to build SDL_net is "SDL_net" whereas all other
SDL_xx extensions are "sdl_xx" (example: make sdl_image, make sdl_ttf,
etc...).
Moreover it seems that most other BR target are in lowercase.

Is there any reason why SDL_net target should be an uppercase/lowercase
mix ?
Can you correct that for the coming release ? (I will soon propose
patches that depend on sdl_xx and I don't want to add to some more
"SDL_net" if it's not correct )

Regards,
Julien

[Buildroot] SDL_net target name

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Julien" == Julien Boibessot <julien.boibessot@free.fr> writes:

 Julien> Hi,
 Julien> Makefile target name to build SDL_net is "SDL_net" whereas all other
 Julien> SDL_xx extensions are "sdl_xx" (example: make sdl_image, make sdl_ttf,
 Julien> etc...).
 Julien> Moreover it seems that most other BR target are in lowercase.

 Julien> Is there any reason why SDL_net target should be an uppercase/lowercase
 Julien> mix ?
 Julien> Can you correct that for the coming release ? (I will soon propose
 Julien> patches that depend on sdl_xx and I don't want to add to some more
 Julien> "SDL_net" if it's not correct )

Not really, fixed in git - Thanks.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] SDL_net target name

[Julien Boibessot]

Peter Korsgaard a ?crit :
>
>  Julien> Is there any reason why SDL_net target should be an uppercase/lowercase
>  Julien> mix ?
>
>
> Not really, fixed in git - Thanks.
>   
ok thanks !
but please don't forget package/games/prboom/prboom.mk ;-)
(and probably scripts/buildall.sh)

Regards,
Julien

[Buildroot] SDL_net target name

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Julien" == Julien Boibessot <julien.boibessot@free.fr> writes:

 >> Not really, fixed in git - Thanks.
 >> 
 Julien> ok thanks !
 Julien> but please don't forget package/games/prboom/prboom.mk ;-)
 Julien> (and probably scripts/buildall.sh)

Agh, seems I searched the tree for sdl_net, not SDL_net - Thanks for the
heads up, fixed now.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:

Hi,

 Bill> When I try to use buildroot to to generate a minimal init ramdisk for
 Bill> i386, I get the following error if I try include the kexec package:

 Bill> ......
 Bill> bin/bin-to-hex purgatory < purgatory/purgatory.ro > kexec/purgatory.c
 Bill> /bin/sh: bin/bin-to-hex: not found
 Bill> make[1]: *** [kexec/purgatory.c] Error 127
 Bill> make[1]: Leaving directory
 Bill> `/home/bogstad/software/buildroot/buildroot-2009.05/build_i386/kexec-2.0.0'
 Bill> make: *** [/home/bogstad/software/buildroot/buildroot-2009.05/build_i386/kexec-2.0.0/.stamp_built]
 Bill> Error

 Bill> Does kexec build for any architecture in 2009.05?  Any suggestions on
 Bill> making this work for i386?

It builds here without any problems. Have you set BR2_JLEVEL to
something else than 1? Could you please post your .config?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Bill Bogstad]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Peter Korsgaard<jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:
>....
>
> It builds here without any problems. Have you set BR2_JLEVEL to
> something else than 1? Could you please post your .config?

FYI, I'm a total newbie where buildroot is concerned.

Build Host: Ubuntu 8.04 with most native development packages
installed and up to date patches.

I re-ran my build as specified below and still get the same errors:

1. make menuconfig and took all the defaults + adding kexec.  This was
from a clean directory.
2. nohup make

I'll attach the resulting .config just in case, but it should be
easily repeatable on any Ubuntu 8.04 system.

Bill Bogstad

P.S. Interestingly, I just did essentially the same thing with
buildroot-2009.08-rc3 and it builds.  I now have four different config
files 05/08 * kexec/nokexec and the only one that fails is 05 with
kexec.   Oh, I've also tried to build 05 with kexec twice (starting
from unarchiving buildroot tar file) and I get the same error each
time so I don't think it's some hardware problem on my build host.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: config.kexec.05
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 18050 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20090828/79fc0ca9/attachment-0001.obj>

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Will Newton]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Bill Bogstad<bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Peter Korsgaard<jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:
>>....
>>
>> It builds here without any problems. Have you set BR2_JLEVEL to
>> something else than 1? Could you please post your .config?
>
> FYI, I'm a total newbie where buildroot is concerned.
>
> Build Host: Ubuntu 8.04 with most native development packages
> installed and up to date patches.

buildroot does not seem to be happy with /bin/sh pointing at dash, it
would seem to require bash (I don't have any specific failures in
mind, but I have seen a few). I find it easiest just to make sure that
/bin/sh points at bash if I'm using Ubuntu.

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Daniele Salvatore Albano]

Just run
sudo dpkg-reconfigure dash

to drop sh link to dash and make it with bash

2009/8/28 Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Bill Bogstad<bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Peter Korsgaard<jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:
>>>....
>>>
>>> It builds here without any problems. Have you set BR2_JLEVEL to
>>> something else than 1? Could you please post your .config?
>>
>> FYI, I'm a total newbie where buildroot is concerned.
>>
>> Build Host: Ubuntu 8.04 with most native development packages
>> installed and up to date patches.
>
> buildroot does not seem to be happy with /bin/sh pointing at dash, it
> would seem to require bash (I don't have any specific failures in
> mind, but I have seen a few). I find it easiest just to make sure that
> /bin/sh points at bash if I'm using Ubuntu.
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>



-- 
Daniele Salvatore Albano
Consulente Informatico
http://www.phpsoft.it
http://www.dacci.it

Servizi:
- Sviluppo in C# e PHP
- Installazione e Amministrazione sistemi Ubuntu, CentOS e Fedora

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Bill Bogstad]

Re: suggestion to replace /bin/sh with a link to bash.

Is this a workaround for an acknowledged bug in buildroot or a
statement of lack of support for standard Ubuntu installations?
If Ubuntu isn't supported, which Linux systems are so I can switch my
build host environment?

In either case, it doesn't matter.  I made the switch and get exactly
the same error.  I'll be switching it back to the default since it
doesn't matter and I would prefer a 'standard' Ubuntu host environment
for other uses of the machine.

Thanks,
Bill Bogstad

P.S. As I mentioned before, 08-rc3 doesn't seem to have this problem.

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Daniele Salvatore Albano]

Ubuntu is perfectly supported, just need to use bash instead of dash, just run
sudo dpkg-reconfigure dash

and say no when it ask for sh link to dash

2009/8/28 Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com>:
> Re: suggestion to replace /bin/sh with a link to bash.
>
> Is this a workaround for an acknowledged bug in buildroot or a
> statement of lack of support for standard Ubuntu installations?
> If Ubuntu isn't supported, which Linux systems are so I can switch my
> build host environment?
>
> In either case, it doesn't matter. ?I made the switch and get exactly
> the same error. ?I'll be switching it back to the default since it
> doesn't matter and I would prefer a 'standard' Ubuntu host environment
> for other uses of the machine.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Bogstad
>
> P.S. As I mentioned before, 08-rc3 doesn't seem to have this problem.
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>



-- 
Daniele Salvatore Albano
Consulente Informatico
http://www.phpsoft.it
http://www.dacci.it

Servizi:
- Sviluppo in C# e PHP
- Installazione e Amministrazione sistemi Ubuntu, CentOS e Fedora

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Bill Bogstad]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Daniele Salvatore
Albano<d.albano@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ubuntu is perfectly supported, just need to use bash instead of dash, just run
> sudo dpkg-reconfigure dash
>
> and say no when it ask for sh link to dash

Please reread the section of my previous message below.  I did exactly
what you said and got exactly
the same error message.  It may be that dash vs. bash sometimes causes
a problem, but that is NOT
the problem in this case.  Everything works perfectly with bash if I
don't compile kexec.  It only fails
if I add kexec to my config file and bash vs. dash makes no difference
in that case.  This is easily repeatable on my system.  It still maybe
that my system is different from other Ubuntu 8.04 systems,
but until someone attempts to repeat it I can only assume it's a
problem with buildroot.

Finally, I would quibble with your statement about Ubuntu being
perfectly supported as well.  Having to
make such a fundamental change to a core program of the system in
order to get it to work correctly
seems a little much.   In any case, it looks like the top level
Makefile already handles things if /bin/sh isn't bash.  It may be that
some parts of buildroot don't make use of SHELL properly, but that
would seem to be a bug rather then a dependency.  The actual
dependency is that bash be installed on the system somewhere.

From Makefile:

# we want bash as shell
SHELL:=$(shell if [ -x "$$BASH" ]; then echo $$BASH; \
        else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash; \
        else echo sh; fi; fi)

Bill Bogstad

>
> 2009/8/28 Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com>:
>> Re: suggestion to replace /bin/sh with a link to bash.
>>
>.....
>>
>> In either case, it doesn't matter. ?I made the switch and get exactly
>> the same error. ?I'll be switching it back to the default since it
>> doesn't matter and I would prefer a 'standard' Ubuntu host environment
>> for other uses of the machine.

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:

Hi,

 Bill> Finally, I would quibble with your statement about Ubuntu being
 Bill> perfectly supported as well.  Having to make such a fundamental
 Bill> change to a core program of the system in order to get it to work
 Bill> correctly seems a little much.  In any case, it looks like the
 Bill> top level Makefile already handles things if /bin/sh isn't bash.
 Bill> It may be that some parts of buildroot don't make use of SHELL
 Bill> properly, but that would seem to be a bug rather then a
 Bill> dependency.  The actual dependency is that bash be installed on
 Bill> the system somewhere.

Exactly. The buildroot makefiles should work just fine with dash as
/bin/sh, but the build system of some of the packages (which doesn't use
the SHELL setting) might not.

This is ofcourse a bug in those upstream packages, but there's a chance
some have hit (as most people have/had bash as /bin/sh).

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 Will> buildroot does not seem to be happy with /bin/sh pointing at
 Will> dash, it would seem to require bash (I don't have any specific
 Will> failures in mind, but I have seen a few). I find it easiest just
 Will> to make sure that /bin/sh points at bash if I'm using Ubuntu.

Really? Buildroot itself shouldn't care as we explicitly use bash, but
the build system of various packages could ofcourse fail.

Please report if you notice something like this in the future so we can
get it fixed.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Will Newton]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Peter Korsgaard<jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> ?Will> buildroot does not seem to be happy with /bin/sh pointing at
> ?Will> dash, it would seem to require bash (I don't have any specific
> ?Will> failures in mind, but I have seen a few). I find it easiest just
> ?Will> to make sure that /bin/sh points at bash if I'm using Ubuntu.
>
> Really? Buildroot itself shouldn't care as we explicitly use bash, but
> the build system of various packages could ofcourse fail.
>
> Please report if you notice something like this in the future so we can
> get it fixed.

I believe there is/was an issue with globbing and patch-kernel.sh in
the linux-headers Makefile. I'll see if i can reproduce it this week
sometime.

Problems have also been reported using buildroot on Ubuntu systems by
our customers so I don't think it's isolated to my system.

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:

Hi,

 Bill> P.S. Interestingly, I just did essentially the same thing with
 Bill> buildroot-2009.08-rc3 and it builds.  I now have four different
 Bill> config files 05/08 * kexec/nokexec and the only one that fails is
 Bill> 05 with kexec.  Oh, I've also tried to build 05 with kexec twice
 Bill> (starting from unarchiving buildroot tar file) and I get the same
 Bill> error each time so I don't think it's some hardware problem on my
 Bill> build host.

That's strange as the kexec package hasn't been changed since
February. I cannot think of other changes offhand that could have fixed
it..

2009.08 is to be released any moment now though, so maybe you could just
move to that?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] Does the kexec package buildroot-2009.05 for i386?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:

 Bill> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Peter Korsgaard<jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:
 >>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> writes:
 >> 
 >> 2009.08 is to be released any moment now though, so maybe you could just
 >> move to that?

 Bill> I think that's what I will do.

Ok, good.

 Bill> Thanks for clarifying the bash vs. dash issue as well.  If
 Bill> necessary I could have set up a virtual environment for whatever
 Bill> the build requirements are.  It's just that it is more convenient
 Bill> to use my default environment (Ubuntu 8.04).

The idea is to have it working out of the box on all (sane)
distributions, but we're apparently not quite there yet on
Ubuntu. Bugreports and/or patches are as always welcome.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard