New mtd-utils release?

New mtd-utils release?

[Daniel Mack]

Hi,

we're building mtd-utils with buildroot, and as we need a recent version
of it to get the ubi features, we currently check out a git snapshot as
tarball. Last week, for some reason the SHA1 ID we used (e783e75e0)
disappeared from the repository. (Just out of curiosity: what happened?
Was the tree rebased or filtered?).

However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
more like to check out a version that is officially tagged. Seeing the
last tag has been done ~17 month ago, I wonder whether there is any
change to get a new one soon?

Thanks,
Daniel

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Mack <daniel@caiaq.de> writes:

Hi,

 Daniel> we're building mtd-utils with buildroot, and as we need a
 Daniel> recent version of it to get the ubi features, we currently
 Daniel> check out a git snapshot as tarball. Last week, for some reason
 Daniel> the SHA1 ID we used (e783e75e0) disappeared from the
 Daniel> repository. (Just out of curiosity: what happened?  Was the
 Daniel> tree rebased or filtered?).

FYI, the e783e SHA1 must be a local change. We have been using
fcb52ccc996 since April 2008. What did change recently though was that
the git installation on infradead got updated recently, and gitweb >=
1.6.6-rc1 uses a slightly different snapshot tarball format than before
(it appends the 7 first chars of SHA1 to directory name).

 Daniel> However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
 Daniel> more like to check out a version that is officially tagged. Seeing the
 Daniel> last tag has been done ~17 month ago, I wonder whether there is any
 Daniel> change to get a new one soon?

Me too - It would be very good to see a stable release with ubi support.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:14 +0800, Daniel Mack wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we're building mtd-utils with buildroot, and as we need a recent version
> of it to get the ubi features, we currently check out a git snapshot as
> tarball. Last week, for some reason the SHA1 ID we used (e783e75e0)
> disappeared from the repository. (Just out of curiosity: what happened?
> Was the tree rebased or filtered?).

Dunno, but it must be me how made this crew-up, sorry. I cannot say
exactly how it happened, but it was non-intentional. Probably pushed one
patch version, then later amended it, and pushed it with --force. This
should never be done, sorry.

> However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
> more like to check out a version that is officially tagged.

OK, I can tag them at the beginning of the next year. I'm having
holydays in 10 min.

>  Seeing the
> last tag has been done ~17 month ago, I wonder whether there is any
> change to get a new one soon?

We usually use the master branch. And there is simply no one who cares
about tags. But I can do this. You'll get a new tag when I come back
from holydays, unless someone else tag it earlier.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 >> However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
 >> more like to check out a version that is officially tagged.

 Artem> OK, I can tag them at the beginning of the next year. I'm having
 Artem> holydays in 10 min.

Thanks - Enjoy your holidays!

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:14 +0800, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> we're building mtd-utils with buildroot, and as we need a recent version
>> of it to get the ubi features, we currently check out a git snapshot as
>> tarball. Last week, for some reason the SHA1 ID we used (e783e75e0)
>> disappeared from the repository. (Just out of curiosity: what happened?
>> Was the tree rebased or filtered?).
>
>Dunno, but it must be me how made this crew-up, sorry. I cannot say
>exactly how it happened, but it was non-intentional. Probably pushed one
>patch version, then later amended it, and pushed it with --force. This
>should never be done, sorry.
>
>> However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
>> more like to check out a version that is officially tagged.
>
>OK, I can tag them at the beginning of the next year. I'm having
>holydays in 10 min.
>
>>  Seeing the
>> last tag has been done ~17 month ago, I wonder whether there is any
>> change to get a new one soon?
>
>We usually use the master branch. And there is simply no one who cares
>about tags. But I can do this. You'll get a new tag when I come back
>from holydays, unless someone else tag it earlier.

I've avoided doing a release because there isn't a really good way to
correlate mtd-utils to kernel version.  I don't believe there have been
any on-disk (Ha!) UBIFS format changes, and UBI itself hasn't had format
changes for a long time, so it is probably safe to do that now.

Still, I would very much like to avoid having a compatiblity matrix like
the LTTng project does.

(Also, I believe nandwrite is _STILL_ broken with the OOB stuff.)

josh

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Daniel Mack]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:14 +0800, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > we're building mtd-utils with buildroot, and as we need a recent version
> > of it to get the ubi features, we currently check out a git snapshot as
> > tarball. Last week, for some reason the SHA1 ID we used (e783e75e0)
> > disappeared from the repository. (Just out of curiosity: what happened?
> > Was the tree rebased or filtered?).
> 
> Dunno, but it must be me how made this crew-up, sorry. I cannot say
> exactly how it happened, but it was non-intentional. Probably pushed one
> patch version, then later amended it, and pushed it with --force. This
> should never be done, sorry.

No big thing, I was just wondering. Probably the commit was dead (ie,
not lined-up with an exposed head) for a longer time and just got
vacuumed last week, dunno.

> > However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
> > more like to check out a version that is officially tagged.
> 
> OK, I can tag them at the beginning of the next year. I'm having
> holydays in 10 min.
> 
> >  Seeing the
> > last tag has been done ~17 month ago, I wonder whether there is any
> > change to get a new one soon?
> 
> We usually use the master branch. And there is simply no one who cares
> about tags. But I can do this. You'll get a new tag when I come back
> from holydays, unless someone else tag it earlier.

Great, thank you. The background of my question was also whether there
is a version which is reliable, in terms of representing a stable set
of features, defining a larger merge of new features and the like, so
it deserves the term 'release' :)

Not saying that any of the snapshops caused any trouble so far, it would
just feel better to check out something that has been tagged by the
maintainers.

Thanks,
Daniel

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 Josh> I've avoided doing a release because there isn't a really good
 Josh> way to correlate mtd-utils to kernel version.  I don't believe
 Josh> there have been any on-disk (Ha!) UBIFS format changes, and UBI
 Josh> itself hasn't had format changes for a long time, so it is
 Josh> probably safe to do that now.

Well, you'll have those version issues anyway - With known-good git
SHA1's or releases. Adding a release would just make more people use the
same revision, instead of people using git head of whatever day they
needed mtd-utils.

 Josh> (Also, I believe nandwrite is _STILL_ broken with the OOB stuff.)

Ok, what is the issue? Anyone working on fixing it? Did it work back in
1.2.0?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 03:41:38PM +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>Hi,
>
> Josh> I've avoided doing a release because there isn't a really good
> Josh> way to correlate mtd-utils to kernel version.  I don't believe
> Josh> there have been any on-disk (Ha!) UBIFS format changes, and UBI
> Josh> itself hasn't had format changes for a long time, so it is
> Josh> probably safe to do that now.
>
>Well, you'll have those version issues anyway - With known-good git
>SHA1's or releases. Adding a release would just make more people use the
>same revision, instead of people using git head of whatever day they
>needed mtd-utils.

This is true.  I just feel better about saying 'use git head' or
'upgrade your kernel' than I do trying to come up with some kind of
mapping.

> Josh> (Also, I believe nandwrite is _STILL_ broken with the OOB stuff.)
>
>Ok, what is the issue? Anyone working on fixing it? Did it work back in
>1.2.0?

The MEMSETOOBSEL ioctl no longer exists in the kernel. It worked in 1.2.0
assuming you were using a sufficiently old enough kernel.  I can't recall
if anyone is working on fixing it or not, but Thomas has mentioned that
there is a patch floating around somewhere.

josh

OMAP2 issue while compiling the latest mtd-2.6 git kernel

[Tadimarri Sarath Babu]

Hi ,

I am facing the following problem while compiling the mtd2.6 git kernel .
I used the arch/arm/configs/omap_apollon_2420_defconfig  as the config file
and used the arm-2009q1/arm-none-linux-gnueabi- compiler for compiling.

Log :
# make
  CHK     include/linux/version.h
make[1]: `include/asm-arm/mach-types.h' is up to date.
  CHK     include/linux/utsrelease.h
  SYMLINK include/asm -> include/asm-arm
  CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
<stdin>:1351:2: warning: #warning syscall migrate_pages not implemented
  CHK     include/linux/compile.h
  CC      arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.o
arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c: In function 'omap_init_mcspi':
arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:365: error: 'omap2_mcspi3_resources' undeclared (first use in this 
function)
arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:365: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:365: error: for each function it appears in.)
arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:367: error: 'omap2_mcspi4_resources' undeclared (first use in this 
function)
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2] Error 2

Regards,
Sarath. 

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 14:03 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  >> However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much
>  >> more like to check out a version that is officially tagged.
> 
>  Artem> OK, I can tag them at the beginning of the next year. I'm having
>  Artem> holydays in 10 min.
> 
> Thanks - Enjoy your holidays!

I've tagged the current head with v1.3.0. I did not carefully write the
change-log, though, because I was not prepared for doing the tagging.
Anyway, I'll try to keep this in mind in the future and provide new tags
one there is a major change, as well as better change-log.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 Artem> I've tagged the current head with v1.3.0. I did not carefully
 Artem> write the change-log, though, because I was not prepared for
 Artem> doing the tagging.  Anyway, I'll try to keep this in mind in the
 Artem> future and provide new tags one there is a major change, as well
 Artem> as better change-log.

Great, thanks. I'll give it a spin.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Robert Schwebel]

Artem,

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:42:15AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> I've tagged the current head with v1.3.0. I did not carefully write the
> change-log, though, because I was not prepared for doing the tagging.
> Anyway, I'll try to keep this in mind in the future and provide new tags
> one there is a major change, as well as better change-log.

Could you upload a tarball into ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/?
It would make the life of the distribution people easier.

Cheers,
Robert
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 22:25 +0100, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> Artem,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:42:15AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > I've tagged the current head with v1.3.0. I did not carefully write the
> > change-log, though, because I was not prepared for doing the tagging.
> > Anyway, I'll try to keep this in mind in the future and provide new tags
> > one there is a major change, as well as better change-log.
> 
> Could you upload a tarball into ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/?
> It would make the life of the distribution people easier.

No sorry, I do not have access there, and I also think distributions can
easily fetch from git trees, which is not a problem at all.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:

 >> Could you upload a tarball into ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/?
 >> It would make the life of the distribution people easier.

 Artem> No sorry, I do not have access there, and I also think distributions can
 Artem> easily fetch from git trees, which is not a problem at all.

Who does, David?

I DO think normal tarballs is a lot nicer than a tag somewhere in
$VCS. For meta distributions like ptxdist, OE or buildroot tarballs are
easier to use and mirror, and if nothing else it stops people from
missing the new release when they browse
ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 09:37 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>  >> Could you upload a tarball into ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/?
>  >> It would make the life of the distribution people easier.
> 
>  Artem> No sorry, I do not have access there, and I also think distributions can
>  Artem> easily fetch from git trees, which is not a problem at all.
> 
> Who does, David?

Artem, Thomas, Josh and myself.

> I DO think normal tarballs is a lot nicer than a tag somewhere in
> $VCS. For meta distributions like ptxdist, OE or buildroot tarballs are
> easier to use and mirror, and if nothing else it stops people from
> missing the new release when they browse
> ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/.

Yeah, I agree.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 09:37 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>  >> Could you upload a tarball into ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/?
>  >> It would make the life of the distribution people easier.
> 
>  Artem> No sorry, I do not have access there, and I also think distributions can
>  Artem> easily fetch from git trees, which is not a problem at all.
> 
> Who does, David?

Dunno.

> I DO think normal tarballs is a lot nicer than a tag somewhere in
> $VCS. For meta distributions like ptxdist, OE or buildroot tarballs are
> easier to use and mirror, and if nothing else it stops people from
> missing the new release when they browse
> ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/.

May be.

However, I do not want to be impolite, but I just do not want to do
that. I someone else wants - no problem. I just do not volunteer to
maintain the FTP directory with the tarballs, I only volunteer to
provide the tags. Apologies.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 >> I DO think normal tarballs is a lot nicer than a tag somewhere in
 >> $VCS. For meta distributions like ptxdist, OE or buildroot tarballs are
 >> easier to use and mirror, and if nothing else it stops people from
 >> missing the new release when they browse
 >> ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/.

 Artem> May be.

 Artem> However, I do not want to be impolite, but I just do not want to do
 Artem> that. I someone else wants - no problem. I just do not volunteer to
 Artem> maintain the FTP directory with the tarballs, I only volunteer to
 Artem> provide the tags. Apologies.

Ok, I see that someone (David?) already uploaded a tarball.

Thanks, both.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Jamie Lokier]

Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> missing the new release when they browse
> ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/.

Fwiw, I'm one of those people who browsers the FTP directory
occasionally to get whatever appears to be the latest version, and
would not have known to pick up the new release without the new tarball.

That's because my package build scripts, much like other distros
(Ptxdist, OE, uClinux etc.), include a URL to the original source they
are using, and to update the distro, it's natural to look in the same
place for new versions.

If an FTP/HTTP directory _was_ apparently the primary location of some
package, and then ceases to be kept up to date because it's moved or
because git has taken over, at least please put a README or similar on
the old site saying that the primary location has moved elsewhere.

However, in this case it appears that the FTP directory is still being
kept up to date, so there is no need.

Thanks a lot,
-- Jamie

Re: OMAP2 issue while compiling the latest mtd-2.6 git kernel

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:22 +0530, Tadimarri Sarath Babu wrote:
> Hi ,
> 
> I am facing the following problem while compiling the mtd2.6 git kernel .
> I used the arch/arm/configs/omap_apollon_2420_defconfig  as the config file
> and used the arm-2009q1/arm-none-linux-gnueabi- compiler for compiling.
> 
> Log :
> # make
>   CHK     include/linux/version.h
> make[1]: `include/asm-arm/mach-types.h' is up to date.
>   CHK     include/linux/utsrelease.h
>   SYMLINK include/asm -> include/asm-arm
>   CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> <stdin>:1351:2: warning: #warning syscall migrate_pages not implemented
>   CHK     include/linux/compile.h
>   CC      arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.o
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c: In function 'omap_init_mcspi':
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:365: error: 'omap2_mcspi3_resources' undeclared (first use in this 
> function)
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:365: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:365: error: for each function it appears in.)
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c:367: error: 'omap2_mcspi4_resources' undeclared (first use in this 
> function)
> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.o] Error 1
> make: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2] Error 2

You should CC the OMAP mailing list and the OMAP maintainer. See the
MAINTAINERS file.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Re: New mtd-utils release?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "David" == David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes:

Hi,

 >> >> Could you upload a tarball into ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/mtd-utils/?
 >> >> It would make the life of the distribution people easier.
 >> 
 Artem> No sorry, I do not have access there, and I also think distributions can
 Artem> easily fetch from git trees, which is not a problem at all.
 >> 
 >> Who does, David?

 David> Artem, Thomas, Josh and myself.

It would be good if one of you guys could put 1.3.1 there as well.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard