**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Mar 11 02:59:58 2013 Mar 11 03:01:55 cobalt60_, I'm assuming you are referring to the yoga 11 given the room we are in Mar 11 03:01:55 to which the answer will be, no, nobody will have installed ubuntu on it, because of secureboot Mar 11 03:12:42 Yes the 11. Thats too bad... Mar 11 03:13:11 any other ARM netbook with a touchscreen running Ubuntu? Mar 11 08:18:43 cobalt60_: asus transformer line of tablets + keyboard dock Mar 11 08:22:11 however ubuntu probably could run a little bit better on them :p Mar 11 08:23:11 no idea how it works on those ;D Mar 11 08:33:21 marvin24, you mean to your kernel package, not flash-kernel, right ? Mar 11 08:33:32 ^ no - I decided to use flash-kernel Mar 11 08:33:43 it seemed more appropriete to me Mar 11 08:34:14 in fact, the scripts gets called on every kernel install Mar 11 08:36:30 arrr, it failed to upload again Mar 11 09:54:31 plan to use nano-sized usb stick as ubuntu rootfs on chromebook foiled by the fact that usb support is in modules... Mar 11 09:56:31 and then you discover initramfs... Mar 11 09:56:58 and realize than on most x86 distribs, everything is in module, either sata or usb or pata or whatever storage you use. including the FS Mar 11 10:19:33 unfortunately the chromebook firmware doesn't support initrd Mar 11 10:20:19 suihkulokki: I think that we need to switch to chainloaded uboot Mar 11 10:20:31 a bit overhead but easier support Mar 11 10:20:36 no kernel signing Mar 11 10:31:36 sticking to sd card booting for now Mar 11 10:31:55 the sd card is anyways 5x faster than the cruzer fit I bought Mar 11 10:36:23 sd ends at ~20MB/s in chromebook Mar 11 10:36:41 my samsung does 20MB/s read and 8MB/s write Mar 11 10:37:49 USB 3.0 FTW :) Mar 11 10:44:25 ogra_: 76MB/s from old harddrive Mar 11 10:44:55 ogra_: 135MB/s from new one but this one is in use with other machine normally Mar 11 10:51:08 yeah, i'm still looking for a micro USB 3.0 key for my chromebook Mar 11 10:51:24 * ogra_ doesnt like things that stick out of the case to much Mar 11 10:53:49 that was kind of the idea of the cruzer Mar 11 10:54:48 suihkulokki: and you know that default bootloader do not check usb3 port when you press ^u? Mar 11 10:55:27 hrw: no I didn't.. Mar 11 10:56:05 probably no xhci support in u-boot for that Mar 11 10:58:13 most likely Mar 11 11:04:25 ppisati, have you seen marvin24's patch to flash-kernel to support dtb ? would that work generically enough for our own kernel packages too ? Mar 11 11:04:44 ogra_: didn't see it, where is it? Mar 11 11:05:00 http://paste.ubuntu.com/5602702/ Mar 11 11:06:11 marvin24, hmm, line 9 looks wrong btw Mar 11 11:06:20 i guess you meant $x Mar 11 11:06:49 and line 3 shouldnt use if ... Mar 11 11:07:14 grep -q 'Flattened Device Tree' /proc/cpuinfo || exit Mar 11 11:09:59 (and it should rather exit gracefully instead of "exit 1" if there is no device tree, we still have many kernels that dont ship it) Mar 11 11:26:37 ogra_: ok, thanks for comment Mar 11 11:27:05 hmmm, disregard the last one ... i'm not completely awake today :) Mar 11 11:27:25 I wonder how it worked with $z at all ... Mar 11 11:27:32 heh Mar 11 11:28:06 yes, line 3 checks that already Mar 11 11:28:13 right Mar 11 11:28:45 i just need ppisati to confirm it works with the other dtb kernels too, then we can pul it into raring Mar 11 11:28:50 *pull Mar 11 11:28:50 I used flash-kernel, because the scripts in /etc/kernel/* seems to come from various packages, but linux-image provides none Mar 11 11:29:06 ogra_: cool - that would be nice Mar 11 11:29:18 i thougth it provides the postinst.d bits Mar 11 11:29:24 tegra needs also to be added to the db Mar 11 11:29:51 ogra_: flash-kernel does, but not the linux-image package itself Mar 11 11:30:04 k Mar 11 11:31:39 ogra@anubis:~$ dpkg -S /etc/kernel/postinst.d/*| grep linux Mar 11 11:31:39 ogra@anubis:~$ Mar 11 11:31:41 yeah Mar 11 16:11:04 xnox, hmm, did you replace compiz with metacity ? it just struck me that i didnt have a single chrash during my test install Mar 11 16:13:49 ogra_: no, i did not. Mar 11 16:14:00 but there was a compiz / unity update recently?! Mar 11 16:16:15 yeah, several over the last week Mar 11 16:16:22 (2 at least i think) Mar 11 16:16:31 seems to have fixed the world :) Mar 11 16:16:42 or i was just lucky Mar 11 19:20:03 is there an armel compiler available for armhf systems? Mar 11 19:30:51 need info on how to install armel GCC onto an armhf installation (raring) Mar 11 19:31:40 online info seems kind of sparse on this issue. tried dpkg --add-architecture armel and apt-get updating, but update simply complained about there not existing armel repos Mar 11 19:38:47 mjrosenb, you can compile armel stuff with the armhf compiler. the tuple is just a ridiculous packaging kludge. Mar 11 19:39:12 -mfloat-abi=softfp and it'll generate the right binaries (you may need to drag in armel multiarch/lib dependencies first though) Mar 11 19:43:17 alternatively if you need the tuple to be right, just install gcc-arm-linux-gnueabi{,-4.7} or so (version dependent on your ubuntu, maybe don't need the version at all to get the right package) and it'll do the right thing. Mar 11 19:44:11 NekoXP: gcc-arm-linux-gnueabi is a cross-compiler. Mar 11 19:44:17 djvj, same info to you I think.. the right things should be there, I don't think you have to add-architecture if raring is really multiarch compliant. Mar 11 19:44:39 djvj: Just install g++-multilib and use -mfloat-abi=soft (or softfp, depending on your target) Mar 11 19:44:41 infinity, on ARM? not really, just a compiler built to different defaults.. Mar 11 19:45:05 NekoXP: That package doesn't exist on ARM. Mar 11 19:45:13 infinity: thx Mar 11 19:45:16 huh did it get removed Mar 11 19:45:25 NekoXP: It never existed on ARM. Mar 11 19:45:36 it installs fine on quantal armhf... that said maybe I have some linaro ppa floating around Mar 11 19:45:37 NekoXP: All the gcc-triplet packages are cross-compilers. Mar 11 19:45:48 NekoXP: At least, in the archive. Mar 11 19:46:21 djvj: As to why the add-architecture bit didn't work for you, that's because raring has no armel anymore. We dropped the arch. Mar 11 19:46:36 mjrosenb: I think my issue is not in particular with the compiler. it's that the object is built with the appropriate -mfloat-abi and -msoft-float args, but then it attempts to build the final binary without passing those. Mar 11 19:46:42 djvj: But if your goal is just to compile a soft-float binary for some reason, g++-multilib will DTRT. Mar 11 19:46:57 infinity: oh.. what was the reasoning behind the drop? Mar 11 19:47:21 djvj: We had no compelling reason to support it. Every platform we target can use armhf. Mar 11 19:48:07 djvj: Which also leads to the question of why you're compiling soft-float binaries, but maybe you have a reason. Mar 11 19:48:25 here's the real question, why would you bother compiling for softfloat anyway on an ARM box running armhf? If you've got to have that capability use an x86 box and use a cross-compiler.. is it just that there's some native packaging requirement that dpkg-cross doesn't handle? Mar 11 19:51:30 infinity: Actually now that you mention it, I'm not sure. Lemme ask.. Mar 11 19:54:07 mjrosenb: Oh, and I didn't notice you'd asked the very same question. apt-get install g++-multilib and use -mfloat-abi=soft (or softfp, if your target supports that). Mar 11 19:59:08 infinity: Well, no answer yet, but I'm trying to build spidermonkey on ARM. I think its JIT uses the armel ABI for float ops. Mar 11 20:00:30 djvj: Well, if it's also going to depend on any system libraries other than libc/libstdc++, that's just plain not going to work. Mar 11 20:00:39 djvj: If the intent is to run it on armhf somehow. Mar 11 20:01:06 djvj: If the intent is to build and run it on armel, just use Debian/armel, since targetting a non-existent Ubuntu armel seems silly. Mar 11 20:01:43 djvj: (And, more to the point, if it fails with armhf, perhaps fixing it would be smarter than working around, as all modern armv7 distros are going/gone hard-float) Mar 11 20:02:35 infinity: it should be possible to just set up a chroot environment and target debian repos inside that, no? Mar 11 20:03:02 djvj: You can debootstrap a sid/armel chroot on raring, sure. Mar 11 20:03:17 debootstrap --variant=buildd --arch=armel sid chroot-sid Mar 11 20:03:30 infinity: I'm just getting my feet wet on ARM related stuff, so I can't really defend one vs the other at this point.. Mar 11 20:04:27 djvj: There is no one versus the other. All modern ARM distros are armhf, period. Some people sort of support armel on older hardware (Debian and Fedora), but it's not anyone's focus. Mar 11 20:04:44 djvj: And with the exception of Debian, no one supports full multiarch between ABIs. Mar 11 20:04:59 djvj: So, if your stuff depends on anything outside the base toolchain, it's just plain not going to work. Mar 11 20:05:12 djvj: So, yes, the only sane way forward is to make your stuff work on armhf, IMO. Mar 11 20:05:36 I remember coming in here a while ago, and hearing that the hardfp compiler with --mfloat-abi=softfp was *not* equivalent to using an armel compiler through and through. Mar 11 20:06:08 mjrosenb: The only difference is the default CPU target (which you can also set). Mar 11 20:06:18 mjrosenb: Whoever told you it was otherwise different was mistaken. Mar 11 20:06:46 mjrosenb: But see above. If you depend on other libraries, such attempts will fail anyway, since we only give you a base toolchain with the armel ABI. Mar 11 20:07:00 *nod* Mar 11 20:08:00 Still, same recommendation as I gave djvj, moving to armhf wholesale is the sane way forward, rather then entrenching workarounds. Mar 11 20:08:50 We're the only distro that provides multilib toolchains that actually work, Debian is the only distro that provides armel/armhf multiarch, everyone else has moved to armhf entirely, except for Fedora's old armv5/armel port not quite being dead yet. Mar 11 20:09:06 Targetting the old ABI just isn't worth it in the long run. Mar 11 20:10:27 Besides, if I decide to break or drop the multilib toolchain in the future, I'd rather not have people whining about it because they expected it to work forever. :P Mar 11 20:11:02 I do look forward to a day (soon, I hope) where I can just drop all soft-float support, must as we did for OABI. Mar 11 20:11:08 s/must/much/ Mar 11 20:11:37 infinity: so we have no issues supporting hardfp Mar 11 20:11:41 I also look forward to a day where I can drop i386. Mar 11 20:11:46 Not sure when either of these days may actually come. :P Mar 11 20:11:51 infinity: the problem is that we're using this to test our jit for android Mar 11 20:11:58 and android only supports softfp these days Mar 11 20:12:18 so for testing purposes, we need to be able to run softfp code. Mar 11 20:12:39 mjrosenb: That's untrue, there are hard-float Android builds. But yes, by default, you're right. And I'd recommend just using a Debian chroot if you're looking for a soft/softfp environment. Mar 11 20:12:44 infinity: if you can convince android to switch to hardfp, I won't even look back. Mar 11 20:13:11 Or use Android itself. :P Mar 11 20:13:40 I saw some interesting bits in HK last week about Linaro folks making Android self-hosting. Mar 11 20:15:32 infinity: the problem i've always had is running gdb on android Mar 11 20:15:42 and our test harness that is written in python. Mar 11 20:16:50 Ahh, yeah, those may still be issues. I've not played with their attempts to make Android pretend to be a real build system to see how far it is. Mar 11 20:17:10 Anyhow, Debian or Fedora chroots are likely a reasonable compromise. Mar 11 20:17:15 Or quantal/armel. Mar 11 20:17:23 Which was our last armel release. Mar 11 20:17:40 infinity: evidently fedora doesn't do the whole cross compiling thing? Mar 11 20:17:51 and they build all of their arm packages on arm machines. Mar 11 20:17:58 They do everything natively, yes. Mar 11 20:18:01 Then again, so do we. Mar 11 20:18:14 We just ALSO provide cross toolchains. Mar 11 20:18:23 But this isn't about cross anyway, is it? Mar 11 20:18:56 infinity: djvj is trying to do it natively, I've been using cross (from amd64) for several years now. Mar 11 20:19:02 Ahh. ;) Mar 11 20:19:38 Well, same arguments. We ship a cross that works for biarch/multilib just fine, but if you need access to multiarch libs to link against, you're SOL past quantal. Mar 11 20:20:05 Not much I can do about that. I fought to save armel, I was one of the few. We just didn't have a compelling enough argument to keep it. Mar 11 20:21:08 Then again, precise should be a good enough base for people to keep doing stuff against for another four years, and we can hope armel is dead by then. Mar 11 20:22:12 sadly, our new arm dev machines are chromebooks, which you *really* want to be running raring on. Mar 11 20:23:08 Sure, but not chroots. Mar 11 20:23:30 It's just the kernel and alsa and such that you want raring for. Mar 11 20:24:46 yeah chroots should serve fine, up until such a point where libs get too old for the kernel, which hopefully shouldn't be for a while Mar 11 20:25:07 djvj: Or ever... Mar 11 20:26:21 djvj: About the only kernel/userspace mismatches that ever matter are with udev (which shouldn't be running in chroots) and glibc (which occasionally bumps required kernel version, but the kernel doesn't break glibc by revving) Mar 11 20:26:57 djvj: So you should be fine with, say, precise/armel chroots on your raring (and beyond) systems. Mar 11 20:29:19 infinity: good to know. thanks for the help btw. I just built with hardfp and can replicate the issue I'm trying to track down. Mar 11 20:34:43 infinity: the kernel occasionally breaks glibc by revving Mar 11 20:34:51 infinity: but it has happened like twice **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Mar 11 20:39:54 2013 **** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Mar 11 20:45:48 2013 **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Mar 11 20:46:39 2013 **** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Mar 11 20:46:54 2013 **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Mar 11 20:48:21 2013 Mar 11 22:35:32 mjrosenb, infinity fedora most certainly does have some cross-compiler bits Mar 11 22:36:26 $ arm-linux-gnu-gcc --version Mar 11 22:36:26 arm-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 4.7.1 20120606 (Red Hat 4.7.1-0.1.20120606) Mar 11 23:19:54 Is Bluetooth working now on the Nexus 7 image? I am seeing conflicting reports. Does it perhaps require a workaround? Mar 12 00:08:13 lilstevie: how do you install them? Mar 12 00:08:28 lilstevie: I asked in #fedora-arm, and they denied its existence. Mar 12 00:08:32 um give me a sec Mar 12 00:08:55 mjrosenb, I got the package name from fedoras own wiki 0.o Mar 12 00:09:09 gcc-arm-linux-gnu.x86_64 : Cross-build binary utilities for arm-linux-gnu Mar 12 00:09:17 straight from the yum search Mar 12 00:35:43 I guess Bluetooth is working :) Mar 12 00:40:12 And so is dwm! awesome! Mar 12 00:40:21 Thank you Ubuntu Nexus 7 porters! I have a new netbook! Mar 12 00:41:11 mjrosenb, find it? **** ENDING LOGGING AT Tue Mar 12 02:59:58 2013