The Testing Area :: December Extensions



My experience was compiling the modules for one of the Zydas USB 802.11 dongles. When I used the gcc1-with-libs extension I got a message about the module having been compiled with a different compiler from the kernel when I tried to use it. I needed both the gcc1-with-libs & the gcc-2.95 extensions installed as the 2.95 extension doesn't have make etc. It may also be worth adding to the 2.95 info file that the compiler isn't called gcc, but gcc-2.95 (i.e. it needs the command gcc-2.95 called to invoke the compiler)
Quote
It may also be worth adding to the 2.95 info file that the compiler isn't called gcc, but gcc-2.95 (i.e. it needs the command gcc-2.95 called to invoke the compiler)
- Hmm, maybe it would be better to add a symlink gcc -> gcc-2.95 (and perhaps cc -> gcc-2.95) to the extension and re-post it.
Ping: Juanito

Thanks very nuch for compile.uci - just used it to sucessfully build gnupg2 (being posted)!

Quote
have not seen any adverse effects compiling modules (eg bluetooth, irda, cifs) with the compile extension,


Andrewb is right - modules have to be compiled with the same gcc (and I think binutils) version as was the kernel.  If not, they might appear to work ok, but unpredictable things could happen, which in the kernel could be very bad.  If modules have been posted that were not compiled with gcc-2.95, these should be pulled immediately and rebuilt.

Quote
maybe it would be better to add a symlink gcc -> gcc-2.95


I suggest not doing that.  As we know, gcc-2.95 needs to be co-installed with eg gcc-with-libs on dsl when compiling the kernel or modules and these versions need to be kept seperate for other compiles.  It's better to explicitly point at CC=gcc-2.95 in the environment or if necessary in the Makefile if it doesn't say that already when building a module (the 2.4.xx kernel config points at it anyway and at least some module sources will get the gcc version  from the kernel sources). Then we're aware that we are doing so and these versions don't get mixed up.  gcc-2.95 is not recommended for compiling anything but the 2.4.xx kernel and modules since it's incapable of doing i686 optimization properly and is generally a pretty crappy gcc version.
New extensions now posted!

Thanks to Juanito for:
perl-5.8.0_XML.dsl
perl5.8.0.dsl
ntfsprogs-2.uci
compile-3.3.5.uci

Thanks to WDef for:
partimage.uci
gnupg2.uci

Thanks to humpty for:
sopcaster.uci
decurs-0.42.2.unc
mlvwm.uci
About gnupg2.uci:

1. This is the new "modularized" branch of GnuPG with new  features, more dependencies to build, and a different architecture. There is nothing wrong with the 1.4.x branch of GnuPG which is still actively maintained, partly because of small distributions such as dsl.

2. The executable is called "gpg2", so that is what you type on the commandline.

3. Applications that have GnuPG as a dependency may not be GnuPG-2  compatible as yet.

4. Applications that can use GnuPG (eg aespipe and loop-aes) for key encryption and so forth may not be able to find GnuPG on dsl unless it is in the standard locations, and not merely symlinked there.  This is why I didn't make a uci out of gnupg-1.4.7.  Hard linking might work.

5. I haven't tested this much yet.  Compiled on i686.  Older cpus  might be better off with gnupg-1.4.7.
Next Page...
original here.