**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Jul 20 02:59:59 2012 Jul 20 08:04:11 ogra_, TheMuso is flash-kernel now more in sync with debian than it used to? Jul 20 08:04:21 I knew at one point they were very diverged Jul 20 08:38:21 janimo, yes, we base on the latest in deabin now Jul 20 08:38:24 *debian Jul 20 08:39:48 I don't know if this is the right channel for this: but how do you handle backport in terms for versioning? I have a natty host, which needed boost1.46. So I took the precise sources and compiled it for natty. Time goes and its time to dist-upgrade to precise. However boost refuses to upgrade as it's the same version the one I compiled for natty. What version number should boost backported... Jul 20 08:39:49 ...to natty have? Jul 20 10:37:02 Any of you guys here had any problems cross compiling x-loader with precise -4.5 compiler? Mine compiles and runs fine with natty host, compiles fine with precise host as well, but won't start Jul 20 10:37:31 (this is for omap3530) Jul 20 10:53:45 sveinse, we usually dont cross build u-boot, we only take what linaro gives us usually, probably ask in #linaro Jul 20 10:58:56 ogra_, thanks. Keeping it cool by not cross compiling then :P Jul 20 11:25:02 sveinse, oh, and on a sidenote we dont use x-loader anymore since precise Jul 20 11:25:11 we use the upstream u-boot-spl Jul 20 11:29:14 ogra_: oh, and no u-boot either then I suppose Jul 20 11:29:50 we use uboot but u-boot-spl instead of xloader Jul 20 11:30:15 why, if I may ask Jul 20 11:30:29 ease of maintenance Jul 20 11:30:40 u-boot-spl is maintained inside the u-boot tree Jul 20 11:30:57 x-loader was always a fork with just reduced functionallity Jul 20 11:31:43 interesting. Technically, is u-boot and u-boot-spl compiled from the same project then? Jul 20 11:32:56 yes, same source code tress Jul 20 11:33:03 *tree Jul 20 11:33:30 nice. I'd consider using u-boot-spl just to remove the extra x-loader package... Jul 20 11:33:49 well, thats what we do in ubuntu Jul 20 11:34:22 * sveinse apt-get source u-boot Jul 20 11:35:03 ogra_: i just realized canonical is actually working on MetalAsAService: https://tbe.taleo.net/NA3/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=CANONICAL&cws=1&rid=502 Jul 20 11:35:33 ogra_: it offers me to build MAAS :) Jul 20 11:35:55 sure, we're working on that since a year :) Jul 20 11:36:11 oh, a historical day ! Jul 20 11:36:16 ogra_: ? Jul 20 11:36:34 microsoft had negative stock numbers for the first time in its history today :) Jul 20 11:37:11 ah, i thought you are finally getting loud with that project :) Jul 20 11:37:33 heh, it has been promoted a lot over the last half year Jul 20 11:37:57 * LetoThe2nd didn't read about it, neither in metalhammer nor rockhard. Jul 20 11:38:22 btw, i just inspected netboot, thats never gonna work (and i wonder why it ever did) there is no partition at all on the SD Jul 20 11:38:34 hehe. Jul 20 11:38:49 the old flash-kernel seems to have had very bad hacks to work around this Jul 20 11:39:11 * ogra_ will try to add a partition to the images Jul 20 11:40:49 sounds like a plan, then. Jul 20 12:13:40 rsalveti: You there? Jul 20 12:14:18 Do you recall bug 813018 by any chance? Jul 20 12:14:18 Launchpad bug 813018 in x-loader "gcc 4.5 breaks overo in latest x-loader (1.5.1)" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/813018 Jul 20 12:17:08 I think I hit this one when changing from natty build host (w/arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-4.5.2-8ubuntu3cross1.47) to precise build host (w/arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-4.5.3-12ubuntu2cross1.61) Jul 20 12:39:50 Why did ubuntu decide on naming compilers as gcc-4.5? It creates just soo many hacks and ineffcients solutions, as very many scripts rely on $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc (including the kernel) Jul 20 12:51:27 sveinse, the default binary is always /usr/bin/gcc Jul 20 12:52:00 (being a link to the gcc-4.x binary used in a release) Jul 20 13:03:06 ogra_: My point was directed at the nomenclature for arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc-4.x. IMHO arm-linux-gnueabi-4.x-gcc would create less friction Jul 20 13:03:48 well, it was a sigh, nothing more Jul 20 13:32:07 marvin24, do you know what happens in unified tegra kernels with errata handling? Seems to me some or all are hard-configured in the build, but would need runtime detection when run on multiple possible targets Jul 20 13:38:55 Does arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc have --sysroot support on precise? (well technically its ld that needs to support it) It wasn't on natty. Jul 20 13:39:42 janimo: there is no runtime detection for most erratas yet Jul 20 13:39:49 I guess there will never be Jul 20 13:40:15 you can only build kernels for a specific soc Jul 20 13:40:17 marvin24, I guess that adds overhead or suboptimal performance to chips unaffected by some? Jul 20 13:40:27 yes, I think so Jul 20 13:40:51 there was a discussion about this some time ago on the arm list Jul 20 13:41:04 but could be done by runtime patching I guess when booting up Jul 20 13:42:28 if you want to get nailed, you could propose it ... Jul 20 13:42:31 ogra_, do you also have touchpad not working on the ac100 with latest install? Jul 20 13:42:53 marvin24, heh I was just wondering aloud, I am not even thinking on taking up such work :) Jul 20 13:43:30 * marvin24 hints janimo to the F9 key Jul 20 13:44:10 janimo, works fine here Jul 20 13:44:41 ah the F9 key which I keep forgetting about :) Jul 20 13:44:44 * janimo will check ASAP Jul 20 21:14:14 Hi all, I'm working with a few small ARM boards, currently focusing on the Gumstix Overo, although I'm pretty much a beginner at this level. Jul 20 21:15:20 I've been having a little trouble (and a lot of confusion) trying to get an Ubuntu bootable sd card up and running for the Overo, and was hoping someone here could help clear up some things Jul 20 21:15:47 Instructions I've found, pretty much all use the rootfs utility Jul 20 21:15:52 *sorry, rootstock utility Jul 20 21:16:05 to make the rootfs for an ubuntu distribution Jul 20 21:16:26 but that's deprecated now, and they recommend using Ubuntu-Core for your rootfs Jul 20 21:19:20 I guess my first specific question is what is the difference between the boot files (MLO, u-boot.bin, and the uImage kernel) on the hardware's site (gumstix.org), and the boot files with the same names on the ports.ubuntu.com site? Jul 20 21:21:03 my second concern is about the hardware specific firmware and modules: Jul 20 21:21:57 are they tied to the specific kernel used? Jul 20 21:22:17 and if so, how can I figure out the version of the kernel they need, and the version I have? Jul 20 21:22:46 any insight is greatly appreciated, thanks Jul 20 21:27:00 Lopako: Since we don't provide either a kernel or a bootloader for that device, the difference between our MLO/uBoot/uImage and theirs would be that "theirs works". Jul 20 21:27:50 Lopako: Oh, unless it's one of the OMAP3 variants. Jul 20 21:28:05 Lopako: In which case, I'd recommend just using our -omap images and seeing if that works. Jul 20 21:28:18 yeah, it's an OMAP3 Jul 20 21:28:41 Right, then. Our images might Just Work. Unless it needs drivers we don't/can't ship. Jul 20 21:29:06 Not having the hardware myself, I can't be wildly helpful. Jul 20 21:29:19 But have you tried just blatting our of our images to an SD and seeing what happens? Jul 20 21:29:59 okay ... so the "-omap images" you're talking about are the full system SD card images? (vs. just the rootfs) Jul 20 21:30:47 not yet, I was hoping to use a more lightweight version than the desktop image (which I used for a PandaBoard I'm also working with) Jul 20 21:30:48 Yeah. Jul 20 21:31:01 You could grab the server image. Jul 20 21:31:16 ok Jul 20 21:31:17 It's large in size, but only because it has a package pool on it. The actual installed system is tiny. Jul 20 21:32:31 are all the current preinstalled images armhf? Jul 20 22:09:30 Lopako: Yes. Jul 20 22:09:59 Lopako: You almost certainly want armhf, unless you have some whacky obscure armel binary you just can't live without. Jul 20 22:11:18 mk, the armhf vs armel choice still trips me up sometimes, I must have reread wiki pages on them 10 times this week Jul 20 22:12:04 Lopako: armhf = the new hotness Jul 20 22:12:22 Lopako: armel = binary compatible with older stuff, but slower and unsupported in the future Jul 20 22:12:26 my end goal is to get software (ROS) on the Overo that's gonna have lots of dependencies which I'm worried about Jul 20 22:12:30 haha Jul 20 22:12:32 gotcha Jul 20 22:12:42 btw, thank you for your help, infinity Jul 20 22:12:56 Is this software from some third-party that distributes binaries? Jul 20 22:13:10 Cause if it's from source (or in the Ubuntu archive), armhf won't be a problem at all. Jul 20 22:13:24 If it's from a third-party, lean on them to fix their crap, if they don't have an armhf build. :P Jul 20 22:13:35 Cause all future ARM ports for major distros are moving to armhf. Jul 20 22:14:00 it's a big system of packages, most of them source, but often having system dependencies that can be tricky Jul 20 22:14:18 how hard is it to make that move? Jul 20 22:15:31 Lopako: Well, not harder for armhf than armel. Jul 20 22:15:47 Lopako: The system deps should all be there, we built the entire archive for armhf. Jul 20 22:15:54 Lopako: And building from source is, well, the same on either. Jul 20 22:16:05 okay, that's good to know Jul 20 22:17:24 I'm interning for the company responsible for most of the core stuff, so this will be good to sell them on getting with the future =) Jul 20 22:19:29 Just to double-check my understanding, if there's a library I need that has an armel binary, but no armhf binary in the archives, it should be fairly simple /compatible to built the source for armhf? Jul 20 22:29:59 Yes, but I doubt you'll find that situation. Jul 20 22:30:12 Our archive coverage was pretty good. Jul 20 22:30:26 Well, more to the point, you won't find anything that is buildable, but not in the archive. :P Jul 20 22:30:37 The only reason it wouldn't be is if it failed to build. Jul 20 22:35:43 oo, k Jul 20 22:35:47 thanks Jul 21 01:10:14 /wg 9 **** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Jul 21 02:59:58 2012