Re: Linux Kernel include files

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Joerg Schilling]

Harald Arnesen <harald@skogtun.org> wrote:

> Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
> >> If I actually install smake, as Jörg recommends, the message becomes:
> >> smake: Can't find any source for 'CCOM_suncc'.
> >> smake: Couldn't make 'CCOM_suncc'.
> >
> > Well, I was in hope that a small typo (in special as the correct spelling is in 
> > the file README.compile) should not be a problem.
> >
> > You need to use CCOM=suncc 
>
> Then it (star, I haven't tried cdrtools yes) compiles and links fine.
> There must be something wrong with your Linux installation.

Maybe because it automatically deactivates the Linux extensions if the 
autoconfiguration sees broken include files. Did you see something like:

checking if Linux include file linux/ext2_fs.h is broken... yes
checking if Linux include file /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs.h is broken... yes
checking if Linux include file scsi/scsi.h is broken... no
checking if Linux include file /usr/src/linux/include/scsi/scsi.h is broken... no
checking if Linux include file scsi/sg.h is broken... no
checking if Linux include file /usr/src/linux/include/scsi/sg.h is broken... no

Warning: *** /usr/src/linux/include contains broken include files ***
Warning: *** /usr/src/linux/include is not used this reason ***
Warning: This may result in the inability to use recent Linux kernel interfaces


Warning: *** linux/ext2_fs.h is not usable at all ***
Warning: *** This makes it impossible to support Linux file flags ***
You may try to compile using 'make COPTX=-DTRY_EXT2_FS'

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:00 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Warning: *** linux/ext2_fs.h is not usable at all ***
> Warning: *** This makes it impossible to support Linux file flags ***
> You may try to compile using 'make COPTX=-DTRY_EXT2_FS'

Again, can you be _specific_? Amusing though your consistent 'Lunix is
broken' chants are, the only reason I'm bothering to participate in this
thread is on the off-chance that something _productive_ will come of it.

By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Joerg Schilling]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:00 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Warning: *** linux/ext2_fs.h is not usable at all ***
> > Warning: *** This makes it impossible to support Linux file flags ***
> > You may try to compile using 'make COPTX=-DTRY_EXT2_FS'
>
> Again, can you be _specific_? Amusing though your consistent 'Lunix is
> broken' chants are, the only reason I'm bothering to participate in this
> thread is on the off-chance that something _productive_ will come of it.

I have been forced to add this test as too many people reported that they
have no been able to compile star on their Linux distribution. 


> By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
> References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 

Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:00 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Warning: *** linux/ext2_fs.h is not usable at all ***
> > > Warning: *** This makes it impossible to support Linux file flags ***
> > > You may try to compile using 'make COPTX=-DTRY_EXT2_FS'
> >
> > Again, can you be _specific_? Amusing though your consistent 'Lunix is
> > broken' chants are, the only reason I'm bothering to participate in this
> > thread is on the off-chance that something _productive_ will come of it.
> 
> I have been forced to add this test as too many people reported that they
> have no been able to compile star on their Linux distribution. 

But do you not know _why_? What exactly are you testing _for_?

Bug reports which merely say 'is broken' are not helpful.

> > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
> > References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 
> 
> Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.

It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not have
noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and if you
care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not _obliged_
to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Joerg Schilling]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:00 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > Warning: *** linux/ext2_fs.h is not usable at all ***
> > > > Warning: *** This makes it impossible to support Linux file flags ***
> > > > You may try to compile using 'make COPTX=-DTRY_EXT2_FS'
> > >
> > > Again, can you be _specific_? Amusing though your consistent 'Lunix is
> > > broken' chants are, the only reason I'm bothering to participate in this
> > > thread is on the off-chance that something _productive_ will come of it.
> > 
> > I have been forced to add this test as too many people reported that they
> > have no been able to compile star on their Linux distribution. 
>
> But do you not know _why_? What exactly are you testing _for_?
>
> Bug reports which merely say 'is broken' are not helpful.

If you like to know what I test, I encourage you to check the autoconf
scripts. I am testing whether the named include file may be used from a 
user space program.

As I did mention already, I was forced to add the test in order to be able to
compile at all.


> > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
> > > References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 
> > 
> > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
>
> It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not have
> noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and if you
> care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not _obliged_
> to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.

Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the reason.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1113 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-06-28 12:39:57 +0200, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
> > > > References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 
> > > 
> > > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
> >
> > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not have
> > noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and if you
> > care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not _obliged_
> > to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.
> 
> Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
> Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the reason.

Just out of interest: In which cases do you want to break threading?

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:              What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for
the second  :         others and the world remains and is immortal. (Albert Pine)

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jun 28 2007 12:57, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>> >
>> > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not have
>> > noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and if you
>> > care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not _obliged_
>> > to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.
>> 
>> Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
>> Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the reason.
>
>Just out of interest: In which cases do you want to break threading?

The threading for this thread is ok.


	Jan
-- 

Re: [OT] Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Joerg Schilling]

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> Jörg,
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
> > > > > References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 
> > > > 
> > > > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
> > >
> > > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not have
> > > noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and if you
> > > care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not _obliged_
> > > to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.
> > 
> > Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
> > Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the reason.
>
> Attacking people who suggest to you they *may* have noticed an anomaly is
> not polite at all, childish at best, and counter-productive in any case.

Well, then please write this to the person who did attack me for no reason!

What he did is typical trollish behavior, as he tried to turn a technical
based discussion into a flame war for no reason.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Re: [OT] Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:02:16PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> > Jörg,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting In-Reply-To: and
> > > > > > References: headers, which RFC2822 says you SHOULD include in replies. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
> > > >
> > > > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not have
> > > > noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and if you
> > > > care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not _obliged_
> > > > to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.
> > > 
> > > Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
> > > Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the reason.
> >
> > Attacking people who suggest to you they *may* have noticed an anomaly is
> > not polite at all, childish at best, and counter-productive in any case.
> 
> Well, then please write this to the person who did attack me for no reason!

I illustrated what looked like to be his reason and it was valid here too,
and you even removed the proofs on purpose of not commenting.

> What he did is typical trollish behavior, as he tried to turn a technical
> based discussion into a flame war for no reason.

Oh yes, of course... Any advice to make mail communication better for
everyone on a mailing list surely is trolling and trying to bring anything
into a flame war... I am always amused by the contents of your rants.

I've never known if you sometimes believe what you say, but it's not my
problem anyway. Maybe having the last word by boring people make you feel
like you're right. But if you cannot openly communicate with people on
mailing lists, please first do not open discussions on subjects which
are known to derivate into flame wars. This month has been particularly
loaded with non-productive contents already.

> Jörg
[advertisements removed]

Willy

Personal attacks (was Re: Linux Kernel include files)

[Joerg Schilling]

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

>
> > Jörg
> [advertisements removed]

Please stop this kind of trolling, you did not remove anything here,
so do not claim to remove things....


As you don't seem to know the nettiquette:

If you believe you have some kind of problems that was used by the
OP to send a personal attack, the natural reaction is to send a
personal mail that does _not_ include a list of persons or a mailing
list.


As it does not seem to make sens to continue here, I will not reply to any 
further mail that tries to discuss something from the "mail threading"
attack.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Re: [OT] Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Måns Rullgård]

Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

> Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
>> Jörg,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > > > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting
>> > > > > In-Reply-To: and References: headers, which RFC2822 says
>> > > > > you SHOULD include in replies.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
>> > >
>> > > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may
>> > > not have noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_
>> > > know, and if you care about RFC compliance you might want to
>> > > fix it. You're not _obliged_ to fix it, of course. I just
>> > > thought you'd like to know.
>> > 
>> > Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
>> > Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the
>> > reason.
>>
>> Attacking people who suggest to you they *may* have noticed an
>> anomaly is not polite at all, childish at best, and
>> counter-productive in any case.
>
> Well, then please write this to the person who did attack me for no
> reason!
>
> What he did is typical trollish behavior, as he tried to turn a
> technical based discussion into a flame war for no reason.

Ah, it's nice to see Jörg back to his usual self.  For a while there
the headers discussion was looking almost reasonable.

BTW Jörg, thanks for the absolutely fantastic real-life flame war you
gave us at LinuxTag (by the Google booth, remember).  I haven't had so
much fun in a long time.  Quite a few bystanders seemed rather
entertained too.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Re: [OT] Re: Linux Kernel include files

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Saturday 30 June 2007 08:02:16 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > Jörg,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting
> > > > > > In-Reply-To: and References: headers, which RFC2822 says you
> > > > > > SHOULD include in replies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
> > > >
> > > > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may not
> > > > have noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_ know, and
> > > > if you care about RFC compliance you might want to fix it. You're not
> > > > _obliged_ to fix it, of course. I just thought you'd like to know.
> > >
> > > Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
> > > Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the reason.
> >
> > Attacking people who suggest to you they *may* have noticed an anomaly is
> > not polite at all, childish at best, and counter-productive in any case.
>
> Well, then please write this to the person who did attack me for no reason!
>
> What he did is typical trollish behavior, as he tried to turn a technical
> based discussion into a flame war for no reason.
>
> Jörg

Jörg - I see no attack. What I do see is a quite friendly notification that 
your mail program appears to be omitting those headers in certain mails and 
that such action is in violation of a published standard.

Your response was inflammatory, rude and very trollish. And when the person 
calmly restated himself and the reason he made the original comment you again 
responded in an extremely unpleasant manner.

When notified that your behavior was incorrect you pointed fingers and 
yelled "He started it!" - something that *CHILDREN* do.

Since it appears that you act like a child its time to add you to my killfile 
again.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.