Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+in\s+RHL\s+7\.1\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:10:42 +1200 (NZST)
Isn't the main problem here that XFS won't compile with GCC 2.96, which is what RHL 7.1 ships with? Or does it? The 2.4 kernel compiles fine with it (and seems to be stable as well)... -- Regards, Ju
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00418.html (7,414 bytes)

2. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:17:52 -0500
Yes it does if you use the patch I sent out yesterday. Steve
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00419.html (7,873 bytes)

3. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:18:38 -0400
Hmm why is a big problem? RH also shipping compat-egcs aka kgcc. Which is what we are currently building with. Steve has a kernel running using RH 2.96 compiler, (with a few code tweaks) So this will
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00420.html (8,191 bytes)

4. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:21:59 +1200 (NZST)
Right, I looked at it -- shouldn't that patch go into the ISO? -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00421.html (7,861 bytes)

5. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:39:13 -0500
The reason I did the work was that I just discovered Redhat had switched their build compiler. The amount of exposure xfs has had with this compiler is minimal. I also so far have had zero feedback
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00422.html (8,673 bytes)

6. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:46:31 +1200 (NZST)
Because people will use gcc 2.96 instead of kgcc? ;-) Yep, saw Steve's message. I haven't had very many problems with 2.96 myself (compiled X, KDE 2.1.1, the kernel and modules, glibc) and the system
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00423.html (8,458 bytes)

7. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:44:11 -0400
Not unless they specifically change the Makefile back to gcc. Our installer has add compat-egcs when the kernel development option is selected so recompiling the kernel with kgcc shouldn't be any mor
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00429.html (9,504 bytes)

8. RE: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: "Juha Saarinen" <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:57:20 +1200
Oh, OK, fair enough. I'm going to do the kamikaze pilot thing and build an XFS box compiled with 2.96. Will let you know how it goes. Cheers, -- Juha
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00430.html (8,197 bytes)

9. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: "Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:21:53 +0200
not everybody uses redhat, so not everybody has easy access to old versions of gcc/egcs. i understand that sgi does not want to support every possible distribution out there. but a little bit more of
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00437.html (9,300 bytes)

10. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:32:06 -0500
Right we fully agree, I was mainly referring to users that install our RH kernel src rpm and recompile the kernel from there. So far people have reported gcc 2.95.[2 3 4] and RH 2.96 successfully com
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00442.html (10,321 bytes)

11. XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:10:42 +1200 (NZST)
Isn't the main problem here that XFS won't compile with GCC 2.96, which is what RHL 7.1 ships with? Or does it? The 2.4 kernel compiles fine with it (and seems to be stable as well)... -- Regards, Ju
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01100.html (7,414 bytes)

12. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:17:52 -0500
Yes it does if you use the patch I sent out yesterday. Steve
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01101.html (7,873 bytes)

13. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:18:38 -0400
Hmm why is a big problem? RH also shipping compat-egcs aka kgcc. Which is what we are currently building with. Steve has a kernel running using RH 2.96 compiler, (with a few code tweaks) So this will
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01102.html (8,191 bytes)

14. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:21:59 +1200 (NZST)
Right, I looked at it -- shouldn't that patch go into the ISO? -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01103.html (7,861 bytes)

15. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:39:13 -0500
The reason I did the work was that I just discovered Redhat had switched their build compiler. The amount of exposure xfs has had with this compiler is minimal. I also so far have had zero feedback
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01104.html (8,673 bytes)

16. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:46:31 +1200 (NZST)
Because people will use gcc 2.96 instead of kgcc? ;-) Yep, saw Steve's message. I haven't had very many problems with 2.96 myself (compiled X, KDE 2.1.1, the kernel and modules, glibc) and the system
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01105.html (8,458 bytes)

17. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:44:11 -0400
Not unless they specifically change the Makefile back to gcc. Our installer has add compat-egcs when the kernel development option is selected so recompiling the kernel with kgcc shouldn't be any mor
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01111.html (9,504 bytes)

18. RE: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:57:20 +1200
Oh, OK, fair enough. I'm going to do the kamikaze pilot thing and build an XFS box compiled with 2.96. Will let you know how it goes. Cheers, -- Juha
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01112.html (8,197 bytes)

19. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:21:53 +0200
not everybody uses redhat, so not everybody has easy access to old versions of gcc/egcs. i understand that sgi does not want to support every possible distribution out there. but a little bit more of
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01119.html (9,300 bytes)

20. Re: XFS in RHL 7.1 (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:32:06 -0500
Right we fully agree, I was mainly referring to users that install our RH kernel src rpm and recompile the kernel from there. So far people have reported gcc 2.95.[2 3 4] and RH 2.96 successfully com
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg01124.html (10,321 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu