Re: [LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Myles Watson]

On 12/5/07, Corey Osgood  wrote:
> Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > That said, I haven't used v3 yet.
> > >
> > > give it a try first :-)
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > ron
> >
> > This patch adds support for QEMU to buildrom, for both v2 and v3.  It
> > also allows you to build QEMU from sources with the patches.
>
> you forgot to attach ;)

That's what I get for leaving right after mailing the patch.

Sorry,
Myles

I updated it to use 539, as per Uwe's suggestion to use the latest version.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Myles Watson]

This is the same patch, updated to use HEAD instead of 539.  Because
of the way linuxbios.inc works, this only gets the true head the first
time, then it just takes the previously built tarball.  So if you
really want the new head you have to remove the tarball.

I also created a new variable LINUXBIOS_SVN_DIR to keep it from
getting v2 and v3 confused with version numbers when you switch back
and forth.

I added an option to use the lgdt patch from the mailing list which
enables compilation on the compilers I have.

I fixed a bug I introduced in the last patch when I added an extra @
to a line in linuxbios.inc

Myles

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Myles Watson]

And the patch :)
> Myles
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Jordan Crouse]

On 06/12/07 09:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> And the patch :)

So begins the v3 era in buildrom.  I also have some ideas and patches
for v3 - but since this patch is here, and it works, I think what I'll
do is ack and commit it immediately, and then we can build from there.

Is that okay with everybody?

Jordan
> > Myles
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Acked-by: Jordan Crouse
>

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Ward Vandewege]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:16:52AM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 06/12/07 09:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > And the patch :)
>
> So begins the v3 era in buildrom.  I also have some ideas and patches
> for v3 - but since this patch is here, and it works, I think what I'll
> do is ack and commit it immediately, and then we can build from there.
>
> Is that okay with everybody?

Yes, please :)

Thanks,
Ward.

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Jordan Crouse]

On 06/12/07 09:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> And the patch :)
> > Myles
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

r77. Everybody please update - and go nuts.
>

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordan Crouse [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:26 AM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: Linuxbios
> Subject: Re: State of the buildrom
>
> On 06/12/07 09:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > And the patch :)
> > > Myles
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
>
> r77. Everybody please update - and go nuts.

None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the patch,
but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches differently?
I'm just using 
svn diff buildrom-devel

Thanks,
Myles
> >

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 06.12.2007 17:34, Myles Watson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jordan Crouse [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:26 AM
> > To: Myles Watson
> > Cc: Linuxbios
> > Subject: Re: State of the buildrom
> >
> > On 06/12/07 09:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > And the patch :)
> > > > Myles
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
> >
> > r77. Everybody please update - and go nuts.
>
> None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the patch,
> but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches differently?
> I'm just using 
> svn diff buildrom-devel

If you added new files, you have to issue
svn add path/to/file
before svn diff and/or svn commit.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Jordan Crouse]

On 06/12/07 09:34 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jordan Crouse [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:26 AM
> > To: Myles Watson
> > Cc: Linuxbios
> > Subject: Re: State of the buildrom
> >
> > On 06/12/07 09:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > And the patch :)
> > > > Myles
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
> >
> > r77. Everybody please update - and go nuts.
>
> None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the patch,
> but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches differently?
> I'm just using 
> svn diff buildrom-devel

My bad - I screwed it up on my end.
> Thanks,
> Myles
> > >

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Myles Watson]

> > None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the
>
> patch,
> > but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches
>
> differently?
> > I'm just using
> > svn diff buildrom-devel
>
> My bad - I screwed it up on my end.

It seems easy to do.  Is there an automated way to add files to svn with a
patch.

"svn patch" seems like it might be nice. (It would "svn add" files added in
a patch)

Myles

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Jordan Crouse]

On 06/12/07 10:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the
> >
> > patch,
> > > but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches
> >
> > differently?
> > > I'm just using
> > > svn diff buildrom-devel
> >
> > My bad - I screwed it up on my end.
>
> It seems easy to do.  Is there an automated way to add files to svn with a
> patch.
>
> "svn patch" seems like it might be nice. (It would "svn add" files added in
> a patch)

I have a script - it broke.  I don't know why.  Seesh - why is everybody
acting like this is the first time anybody ever messed up a commit? :)

Jordan

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Corey Osgood]

Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 06/12/07 10:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the
> > >
> > > patch,
> > > > but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches
> > >
> > > differently?
> > > > I'm just using
> > > > svn diff buildrom-devel
> > >
> > > My bad - I screwed it up on my end.
> >
> > It seems easy to do.  Is there an automated way to add files to svn with a
> > patch.
> >
> > "svn patch" seems like it might be nice. (It would "svn add" files added in
> > a patch)
>
> I have a script - it broke.  I don't know why.  Seesh - why is everybody
> acting like this is the first time anybody ever messed up a commit? :)
>
> Jordan

Because you don't make mistakes :p

-Corey

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Jordan Crouse]

On 06/12/07 12:22 -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > On 06/12/07 10:00 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > > None of the new files came through.  They look like they're in the
> > > >
> > > > patch,
> > > > > but not in the commit. Am I supposed to generate the patches
> > > >
> > > > differently?
> > > > > I'm just using
> > > > > svn diff buildrom-devel
> > > >
> > > > My bad - I screwed it up on my end.
> > >
> > > It seems easy to do.  Is there an automated way to add files to svn with a
> > > patch.
> > >
> > > "svn patch" seems like it might be nice. (It would "svn add" files added in
> > > a patch)
> >
> > I have a script - it broke.  I don't know why.  Seesh - why is everybody
> > acting like this is the first time anybody ever messed up a commit? :)
> >
> > Jordan
>
> Because you don't make mistakes :p

You haven't known me very long, have you?   Just wait.... :)
> -Corey

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Jordan Crouse]

On 06/12/07 08:57 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> This is the same patch, updated to use HEAD instead of 539.  Because
> of the way linuxbios.inc works, this only gets the true head the first
> time, then it just takes the previously built tarball.  So if you
> really want the new head you have to remove the tarball.

The decision to force the user to chose what revision to use was mine, and
I've taken a lot of flack for it.  I still think there is real value in
directly specifying where the code comes from (for reproducability) purposes,
but if everybody complains at the same time, I can change my mind
(and reserve the right to say "I told you so" later).
> I also created a new variable LINUXBIOS_SVN_DIR to keep it from
> getting v2 and v3 confused with version numbers when you switch back
> and forth.
>
> I added an option to use the lgdt patch from the mailing list which
> enables compilation on the compilers I have.
>
> I fixed a bug I introduced in the last patch when I added an extra @
> to a line in linuxbios.inc
> Myles
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Not attached, again.. :)
>

[LinuxBIOS] State of the buildrom

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordan Crouse [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:09 AM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: Linuxbios
> Subject: Re: State of the buildrom
>
> On 06/12/07 08:57 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > This is the same patch, updated to use HEAD instead of 539.  Because
> > of the way linuxbios.inc works, this only gets the true head the first
> > time, then it just takes the previously built tarball.  So if you
> > really want the new head you have to remove the tarball.
>
> The decision to force the user to chose what revision to use was mine, and
> I've taken a lot of flack for it.  I still think there is real value in
> directly specifying where the code comes from (for reproducability)
> purposes,
> but if everybody complains at the same time, I can change my mind
> (and reserve the right to say "I told you so" later).

It seems like a two-edged sword to me.  Right now if you install the latest
iasl and use buildrom, it will fail on any platform that needs iasl, since
iasl changed.

If we took from the latest, we'd have to update iasl before it worked again.

Either way works for me.

Myles