This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: oops! added --testlinux to all.sh call, now get bin/sh: line1: scripts/mkdep: Argument list too long


Dan;

  Thanks so much for the precise instructions.

  Could you be so kind as to place this patch in the linux-2.4.21
crosstool patch directory in the next release?

  BTW, could you please document that adding :
BINUTILS_EXTRA_CONFIG="LDFLAGS=-all-static"

and

GCC_EXTRA_CONFIG="LDFLAGS=-static"

will result in a statically-linked cross compiler when you generate the
next crosstool release candidate?

Thanks,
Ken


On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 23:57, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Ken Wolcott wrote:
> >>Yup.  I have a patch for that for linux-2.4.24 and 2.4.26,
> >>it'll probably apply cleanly to 2.4.21.  Give it a shot:
> >>http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
> > 
> >   Thanks for the tip.  I'm not real up on diff -Naur, and the proper way
> > to make changes :-(  I think I found out that the difference is that
> > line 500 in linux-2.4.26/Makefile should be 493 in
> > linux-2.4.21/Makefile.  I hope that it works correctly.  How do you
> > "efficiently* and correctly port a patch this simple? :-)
> 
> You don't - since it still applies cleanly, you don't need to make any changes at all!
> 
> >   What I did was the following:
> > 
> > in a new directory:
> > tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2
> > mv linux-2.4.21 linux-2.4.21a
> > tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2
> > modify the linux-2.4.21/Makefile "find" line
> > diff -Naur linux-2.4.21/Makefile linux-2.4.21a/Makefile > bozo
> > 
> > 
> > tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36
> > mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36a
> > tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36
> > mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36b
> > cd crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches
> > cp bozo \
> > crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches/linux-2.4.21/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch
> > diff -Naur crosstool-0.28-rc36a crosstool-0.28-rc36b
> > 
> > 
> > Certainly there must be a more efficient way than this to port a simple
> > kernel patch :-)
> 
> Well, yes.  To make it squeaky-clean, you would do:
> 
> $ cd linux-2.4.21
> $ cp Makefile Makefile.old
> $ wget http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
> $ patch -p1 < linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch
> patching file Makefile
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 493 (offset -7 lines).
> $ cd ..
> $ diff -u linux-2.4.21/Makefile{.old,} > ~/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch
> 
> but that shouldn't be needed unless the patch only applied with
> fuzz (crosstool is paranoid, and doesn't use fuzz when applying patches).
> 
>  > I'm also a wee-bit puzzled.  Why wouldn't such an obvious fix be
>  > successfully submitted to the kernel folks to be a permanent fix?
>  > Certainly this is more "correct" :-)
> 
> Yes.  In fact, it's not a bad patch for the Trivial Patch Monkey,
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/trivial/
> Maybe I'll submit it.
> 
> BTW the 2.6 kernel doesn't suffer from this problem as far as I know.
> - Dan
-- 
Kenneth A. Wolcott
Consultant, Acquisition Systems - Clinical Systems Engineering
GE Healthcare Information Technologies
8200 West Tower Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53223
TWR-2-00-195 (pillar F-3)
Phone:  414/362-2720
Email:  Ken.Wolcott@med.ge.com


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]