🚀 go-pugleaf

Huw Davies (cchd@lucifer.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: I've just applied the 1.1.54 patches to a (working) copy of 1.1.53, ran
: make config choosing the usual group of options (although I added ISO9660
: support which I must have accidentally turned off building 1.1.53) and
: then ran make zImage. Sadly I get compile time errors (see below). I've
: tried rebuilding the compiler with and without elf support but the errors
: remain.

: Given that noone else has complained, I assume that it's a problem with
: my setup (most likely, I need a later version of something). Any pointers
: appreciated.

: Here is the section I'm having difficulties with....

: make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/fs'
: gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-f
: rame-pointer -pipe -m486 -DMODULE -c binfmt_elf.c
: binfmt_elf.c:36: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype
: binfmt_elf.c:825: redefinition of `padzero'
: binfmt_elf.c:61: `padzero' previously defined here

(Almost) Everyone applying patch54 would get the same problem. Here
is what I did:

RTFM (Read The Failure Message ;-), then look at binfmt_elf.c and
take about 1 minute to conclude that binfmt_elf.c actually contains
two complete (but slightly different) versions of the same thing.
Then look at patch54.gz to confirm that Linus didn't have a
binfmt_elf.c to patch against -- SNAFU.

Solution: A number of possibilities, but I chose to edit binfmt_elf.c
by hand to remove the old version from the file.

--
Bill Metzenthen
Mathematics Department
Monash University
Clayton, Victoria, Australia
email: billm@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
       billm@euler.maths.monash.edu.au

Huw Davies (cchd@lucifer.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
: I've just applied the 1.1.54 patches to a (working) copy of 1.1.53, ran
: make config choosing the usual group of options (although I added ISO9660
: support which I must have accidentally turned off building 1.1.53) and
: then ran make zImage. Sadly I get compile time errors (see below). I've
: tried rebuilding the compiler with and without elf support but the errors
: remain.

It turns out that applying the 1.1.54 patch to a 1.1.53 system will lead
to this problem. The simple solution is to edit binfmt_elf.c which, as the
result of applying the patch, contains two copies of the file. I just
simply went down to the start of the second copy and deleted to the end
of file and then rebuilt the kernel.

Thanks to all those who took the time to reply. If I'd bothered to think
rather than just panic (something that's easy to do at 2 in the morning having
worked all day on other computer problems) I'd have probably worked this
out for myself....

WE Metzenthen (billm@jacobi.maths.monash.edu.au) wrote:

: RTFM (Read The Failure Message ;-), then look at binfmt_elf.c and
: take about 1 minute to conclude that binfmt_elf.c actually contains
: two complete (but slightly different) versions of the same thing.
: Then look at patch54.gz to confirm that Linus didn't have a
: binfmt_elf.c to patch against -- SNAFU.

: Solution: A number of possibilities, but I chose to edit binfmt_elf.c
: by hand to remove the old version from the file.

I'm supprised that so many people had problems with that, it doesn't take
much to look at the error and read the file that failed.

--

anthony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alovell@kerberos.demon.co.uk          |   If at first you don't succeed
PGP Key available from a server       |
alovell@cix.compulink.co.uk           |   Get a Bigger Hammer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In comp.os.linux.development, article <CxxoFw.42@kerberos.demon.co.uk>,
  alovell@kerberos.demon.co.uk (Anthony Lovell) writes:
> 
> I'm supprised that so many people had problems with that, it doesn't take
> much to look at the error and read the file that failed.
> 
Linus should put a .message file into his 1.1 kernel directory (such a file
is printed automagically when using the wuftpd server) with a statement
along the lines of

-- WARNING -- This is work in progress. Basic knowledge of C, Makefiles,
kernel installation, and possibly some other more-or-less obscure features
of Linus is required. If you don't have that knowledge, you're on your own.
Use 1.0.9, or wait for 1.2, or _learn_the_stuff_ (it's not that difficult),
but don't bother us busy kernel developers.

Actually, that warning should be shown whenever somebody enters this
newsgroup...

-- 
No, there are no smileys in this article.
This may or may not be intentional.
-- 
Matthias Urlichs        \ XLink-POP N�rnberg  | EMail: urlichs@smurf.noris.de
Schleiermacherstra�e 12  \  Unix+Linux+Mac    | Phone: ...please use email.
90491 N�rnberg (Germany)  \   Consulting+Networking+Programming+etc'ing     42
          PGP: 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44  15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE 
      Click <A HREF="http://smurf.noris.de/~urlichs/finger">here</A>.

Matthias Urlichs (urlichs@smurf.noris.de) wrote:
: -- WARNING -- This is work in progress. Basic knowledge of C, Makefiles,
: kernel installation, and possibly some other more-or-less obscure features
: of Linus is required. If you don't have that knowledge, you're on your own.

	Maybe you know Linus better than most of us, but I dont think that
should be required for someone to run Linux. I am certain that the more
obscure features of Linus are not required, and might even be considered
prying. :-)

-----Straylight-----	       _                ------------------------
The Sun don't Shine      _-_  < \,  _-_,  _-_   bcsaller@mailbox.syr.edu
on this part of the 	||    /-|| ||_.  || \\  SYS ADMIN:Straylight
Matrix.			||   (( ||  ~ || ||/    Running Linux 1.1.56
---Support Linux---	\\,/  \/\\ ,-_-  \\,/   --- Slackware 202 ------

Matthias Urlichs (urlichs@smurf.noris.de) wrote:

: -- WARNING -- This is work in progress. Basic knowledge of C, Makefiles,
: kernel installation, and possibly some other more-or-less obscure features
: of Linus is required. 

I am not all that sure Linus wants us to know any of his more obscure
features!!!  :) :) :)
-- 
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shendrix@escape.widomaker.com      | Linux... that's it for the moment
-----------------------------------+ 

Anthony Lovell (alovell@kerberos.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> WE Metzenthen (billm@jacobi.maths.monash.edu.au) wrote:

> : RTFM (Read The Failure Message ;-), then look at binfmt_elf.c and
> : take about 1 minute to conclude that binfmt_elf.c actually contains
> : two complete (but slightly different) versions of the same thing.
> : Then look at patch54.gz to confirm that Linus didn't have a
> : binfmt_elf.c to patch against -- SNAFU.

> : Solution: A number of possibilities, but I chose to edit binfmt_elf.c
> : by hand to remove the old version from the file.

> I'm supprised that so many people had problems with that, it doesn't take
> much to look at the error and read the file that failed.

I'm surprised that I didn't have this problem. How did I manage to
patch Linux all the way to 1.1.56 without this problem occuring?

BTW why does binfmt_elf.c exist in both the icbs and fs directories?
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John SAUNDERS - AARnet johns@rd.scitec.com.au - #include <stddisclaimer.h> |
| SCITEC Communication Systems - Phone +61 2 428 9541 - Fax +61 2 418 6954   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In comp.os.linux.development, article <38fmbo$h93@newstand.syr.edu>,
  bcsaller@mailbox.syr.edu writes:
> Matthias Urlichs (urlichs@smurf.noris.de) wrote:
> : -- WARNING -- This is work in progress. Basic knowledge of C, Makefiles,
> : kernel installation, and possibly some other more-or-less obscure features
> : of Linus is required. If you don't have that knowledge, you're on your own.

... of Linux, of course.  ;-)

Grumble...

NB, some people forgot about the Subject: of this thread and berated me (in
email) for being elitist. Wrong. However, the rules for development kernels
just cannot be the same as they are for the even-numbered stable codefrozen
versions.

-- 
Habit with him was all the test of truth;
  "It must be right:  I've done it from my youth."
                                -- George Crabbe
-- 
Matthias Urlichs        \ XLink-POP N�rnberg  | EMail: urlichs@smurf.noris.de
Schleiermacherstra�e 12  \  Unix+Linux+Mac    | Phone: ...please use email.
90491 N�rnberg (Germany)  \   Consulting+Networking+Programming+etc'ing     42
          PGP: 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44  15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE 
      Click <A HREF="http://smurf.noris.de/~urlichs/finger">here</A>.

John Saunders (johns@rd.scitec.com.au) wrote:
: Anthony Lovell (alovell@kerberos.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > WE Metzenthen (billm@jacobi.maths.monash.edu.au) wrote:

: > : RTFM (Read The Failure Message ;-), then look at binfmt_elf.c and
: > : take about 1 minute to conclude that binfmt_elf.c actually contains
: > : two complete (but slightly different) versions of the same thing.
: > : Then look at patch54.gz to confirm that Linus didn't have a
: > : binfmt_elf.c to patch against -- SNAFU.

: > : Solution: A number of possibilities, but I chose to edit binfmt_elf.c
: > : by hand to remove the old version from the file.

: > I'm supprised that so many people had problems with that, it doesn't take
: > much to look at the error and read the file that failed.

: I'm surprised that I didn't have this problem. How did I manage to
: patch Linux all the way to 1.1.56 without this problem occuring?

I don't know, but perhaps you didn't do it all by patches?  Or maybe
you are smarter than most of us and actually read the patches to find
any deleted files :-).

I am not certain about where I jumped on the 1.1.?? bandwagon,
but I have a copy of linux-1.1.13.gz floating around and it has the
file:
     -rw-r--r-- root/root     17857 May  3 01:34 1994 linux/fs/binfmt_elf.c
in it, so I guess that I got it from there.

It appears that the file got shifted from the fs directory to the icbs
directory in patch14.gz.  That patch contains:
     Only in v1.1.13/linux/fs: binfmt_elf.c
and a complete new copy of the file in the icbs directory.  An alert
patcher would no doubt have seen this and manually removed the file
from his/her source tree.

None of the later patches (up to patch57.gz) contains an:
     Only in v1.1.??/linux/ibcs: binfmt_elf.c
so I guess that Linus has two copies in his source tree now.

: BTW why does binfmt_elf.c exist in both the icbs and fs directories?

Perhaps because Linus forgot to remove it from the icbs directory?

I notice that I also have a copy of binfmt_coff.c in both the fs and
icbs directories.  This file also got shifted at patch14.gz, so I
guess that there are others out there who also have two copies of
this file.  There are other files which have been deleted or shifted
at some patch level but are still hanging around in my source tree...

--
Bill Metzenthen
Mathematics Department
Monash University
Clayton, Victoria, Australia
email: billm@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
       billm@euler.maths.monash.edu.au