| 1 |
Do you think I should redo my entire development rootfs and make sure the |
| 2 |
correct profile is selected? Or can I just relink the profile? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Also what stage did you use to create our development rootfs? I used |
| 5 |
http://gentoo.osuosl.org/experimental/x86/embedded/stages/stage1-x86-uclibc-2005.0.tar.bz2 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
-- |
| 8 |
Heath Holcomb |
| 9 |
heath at bulah.com |
| 10 |
www.bulah.com |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On 05 27 2005 08:50 am, Brian Jackson wrote: |
| 14 |
> Heath H Holcomb wrote: |
| 15 |
> > I've created my embedded development rootfs. Why is the profile linked |
| 16 |
> > to /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86/2.4? Can I relink it to a 2.6 |
| 17 |
> > profile (/usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86/linux26). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That profile is deprecated. /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86 should get you |
| 20 |
> all the 2.6 goodness from above. The standard in the profiles seems to be |
| 21 |
> 2.6 by default, and use ....../2.4 if that's what you are after. Don't know |
| 22 |
> why our stages use the 2.4 profile since vapier screams at people that |
| 23 |
> don't use 2.6. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> > Is 2.6 going to work with uclibc? Will a 2.6 kernel compile correctly, |
| 26 |
> > or are there problems I should be aware of? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I'm using it without any trouble. There are a number of devices that don't |
| 29 |
> have 2.6 kernels that will work on them fully. (most of the PDAs I know of, |
| 30 |
> broadcom based routers, etc.) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> --Iggy |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives