Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Sun 20 Apr 2014, 06:46
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
SMP & 64 Bit
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 2 [27 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
halfmeg

Joined: 04 Aug 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug 2007, 02:48    Post subject:  SMP & 64 Bit
Subject description: Super-Pup Experiment
 

The cutting edge kernel post has gotten me all hot and bothered. I know Puppy is known for working wonders on older equipment but, the last two systems I purchased have been 64 bit Dual Core processors.

I looked around at a few of the current 64 bit distros and can't stand the idea of 7 to 12 install CDs.

Although I am somewhat new to Linux, I have built a kernel or two using Vector and currently have some time to experiment with an attempt at 64 bit SMP Puppy. This would not be a downward compatible version, it would have to have a EM64T processor.

My initial questions concern the build environment. The build puppy from scratch page still guides one through T2 and Vector Linux as platform. Is that still current or can Puppy now build itself?

For a pure 64 bit environment ( no 32 bit libraries ) I may need to install one of the monster 64 bit distros to get the current GCC and LIBC toolsets to build with, correct? Any recommendations on which distro?

Would like to stick with 2.6.21.5 kernel since some tinkering is already going on with it. Does the patched kernel from puptrix.org for 21.7 accept the RT and Suspend patches mentioned in cutting-edge post? Is -ck patch totally out of the question or does it need modification to adjust to the other patches ( puppy, RT & Suspend ) for proper application?

This won't be an overnight thing for me. It might draw out to be unfinished before the next Puppy arrives. My goals are to get the most out of my latest system purchases using a thin linux distro. One application I am aiming for is MythTV running under Puppy. Another is a mainframe hardware emulator ( 64 bit ) bootable from USB device.

Phil - I may need some assistance in building all this stuff from source to 64 bit executables ( nothing is ever as easy as it appears to be )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15117
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug 2007, 04:07    Post subject:  

Quote:
My initial questions concern the build environment. The build puppy from scratch page still guides one through T2 and Vector Linux as platform. Is that still current or can Puppy now build itself?


Puppy can compile itself with an add on

you will need the latest compiler .sfs
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Compiling

which you can find here
http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/puppylinux/sfs_modules-2/

Very exciting project
good luck with SuperPup Smile

_________________
Puppy WIKI

Last edited by Lobster on Thu 19 May 2011, 10:50; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
raffy

Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 4752
Location: Manila

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug 2007, 08:26    Post subject: ideas  

You may get some ideas from here (Cutting edge kernel for 2.17 ):
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=19719

_________________
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? Get the sfs (English only).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sit Heel Speak


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2595
Location: downwind

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug 2007, 19:13    Post subject:  

Patching for rt doesn't need Vector, only the devx add-in and some basic kernel-compiling know-how. For me, the rt-patched Puppy is unstable. The ck patch generated errors. Perhaps someone who knows C can look at the errors and figure out some trivial trick to get it to go.

Eventually I compiled a ck-patched Puppy kernel under Gentoo, but yee gods what a colossal effort it took. ck-Puppy is stable, and XArchive unpacks compressed packages (on a hard drive install) remarkably fast under ck, but the small benefit is hardly worth the labor.

The genius who wrote the rt patch, Ingo Molnar, is also writing the cfs (completely fair scheduler) part of the 2.6.23 kernel. It is logical to assume that he is designing the two to play well together. Linus Torvalds seems convinced that cfs is just as good as or better than ck.

And so, I would speculate that patching Puppy to get both rt and a top-notch scheduler, a quest which eluded tempestuous and self (we could get one or the other, but not both), will become easy in the near future, when Puppy carries kernel 2.6.23. It might not even need a patch. Perhaps cfs will be the default 2.6.23 scheduler and rt the default kernel preemption model across all Linuxes. Or if not then maybe Barry will configure the kernel to make it so in Puppy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
halfmeg

Joined: 04 Aug 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Mon 06 Aug 2007, 17:14    Post subject:  

Quote:
Puppy can compile itself with an add on

you will need the latest compiler .sfs


Hmmm, I should have split the question I guess. Experimentation has found that the "Unleashed" stuff is binary PET packages.

There seemed to be no method to download all the source packages except via the T2 scripts. While attempting this using the most recent T2 file posted I recieved an error with the mirror location for every file until I removed the 83.133.xxx.xxx ( whatever it was - perhaps a local copy for someone ) from the mirror file. After that the sources were fetched from the original web site. Many of these no longer exist.

Perhaps only a very few ever build Puppy from scratch. Those that have may have done so when the most recent T2 scripts were posted ( 11 Sep 06 ). Then they would have been able to collect all the source packages and update the few that changed since then and simply add them to their local repository.

There seems to be a problem that there is no comprehensive Puppy source repository. This cause a problem when someone attempts to compile from source which is no longer available from www.xxxx.comf/xlite.tar.gz ( or similiar for not quite mainstream programs ) because the site is no longer on the web.

It is also a violation of the GPL, paragraph 6, which states source is to be available if a binary is distributed.

I could be wrong in that a Puppy source repository exists. The T2 script was the most efficient method to download 600+ packages without hunting and pecking for which tar.gz from this forum post or that blog needs to be incorporated to get what is needed to compile Puppy from scratch.

Although many source tarballs were not downloaded, I went ahead and attempted a Build-Target. It seemed to have worked fine until I reached a missing tarball ( flex - I think. The dev platform is powered off currently ) then the script spit out a few red lines, attempted to retrieve the package and stated something about the web site not existing ( www.xxxx.ru/flex - not sure of actual output.

The glibc package built however and one of my goals is to bring glibc up to current release levels. So far everything has been kinda getting familiar with the scripts and what might be needed to proceed from here.

Phil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Leachim

Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Mon 06 Aug 2007, 17:51    Post subject:  

halfmeg wrote:
It is also a violation of the GPL, paragraph 6, which states source is to be available if a binary is distributed.

As to my understanding one must not supply all source code of unmodified parts - a reference to the original source (T2 in this case) should be sufficient.

The main effort in the Puppy distribution are the scripts that glue the system together and makes Puppy so different to other distributions. These scripts are shell-scripts and so per se open source (and the also contain the appropriate copyright messages in their headers)!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
BarryK
Puppy Master


Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 7047
Location: Perth, Western Australia

PostPosted: Mon 06 Aug 2007, 19:49    Post subject:  

If a source package is not at T2, I keep it at puptrix.org -- this is explained on the download page.
If a package is not at T2 or puptrix, let me know and I'll put it there.

Note, I only have to provide sources that are actually used in Puppy. The T2 build system requires more packages than end up in Puppy, and those extra packages are the responsibility of T2 to provide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
halfmeg

Joined: 04 Aug 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Tue 07 Aug 2007, 01:27    Post subject:  

Quote:
As to my understanding one must not supply all source code of unmodified parts - a reference to the original source (T2 in this case) should be sufficient.


You must have a different view than the GPL states in paragraph 1.

Quote:
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.


If the T2 links become inoperative as the 3rd one ( http://83.133.81.222/mirror/ ) on the download page has ( it is also the one in the mirror file from http://www.puppyos.net/test/t2-6.0-puppy-2.10.tar.gz that was causing every 1st download attempt failure ), where would one obtain the source for the specific binaries which create Puppy versions.

Perhaps I haven't setup a proper T2 environment. The Puppy from Scratch page states:

Quote:

We use T2 to build Puppy from scratch. Users of 2.10 do not need to know anything about T2.


Since I am using 2.17 I have found that to obtain source I must at least use the T2 scripts for source download and build.

There is another issue as well. If someone wanted to build Puppy 1.0x from scratch, are all the source packages available? Again from the GPL paragraph 6:

Quote:
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License


Three years is quite a length of time in the age of package developement and replacement. I have encountered this overhead before in CYGWIN and GCC in that I have had to make available source for my distributed biniaries.

It turns out flex-2.5.31.tar.bz2 which I had been unable to download has a .desc file entry pointing to ( http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/lex/ ). Once I changed the now empty mirror file to the 1st T2 mirror on the download page the Build-Target continued on until reaching a 2nd build of glibc (?) . Shortly afterward it spit out a complaint about not finding COMM and having to have it to live. Is that part of T2 setup? Something no longer in devx_217.sfs ?

Phil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Leachim

Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Tue 07 Aug 2007, 06:01    Post subject:  

You should read further:
Quote:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So if I am not profit-oriented and just include precompiled GPL-code without modifications in my project, I do not have to supply the source code of this unmodified parts myself!

It would be a horror and would turn GPL to nonsense, if any programmer who supplies a small patch would have to host the whole project!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jamesbond

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 1876
Location: The Blue Marble

PostPosted: Tue 07 Aug 2007, 08:34    Post subject:  

halfmeg wrote:
It is also a violation of the GPL, paragraph 6, which states source is to be available if a binary is distributed.

Just because *you* cannot find the source packages, doesn't mean that it is not offered (note that none of the GPL terms says that the source has to be made available through FTP, HTTP, online access, etc - only that when asked for, it should be provided, perhaps for a fee).

It would be prudent, polite, civilised, and most importantly, common sense to ask first before jumping to conclusions and accusing people of GPL violations.

_________________
Fatdog64, Slacko and Puppeee user. Puppy user since 2.13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
halfmeg

Joined: 04 Aug 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu 09 Aug 2007, 00:37    Post subject:  

To Barry:

Thanks for the response concerning source. I believe there is a much larger problem here however. There should be a method to have reproducible results when building from source. Your PFS page mentions there are some manual steps to generate Puppy and that is understandable. There does not seem to be a method to recreate a particular version of Puppy from the source however.

You, John M. or both ( since there seems to be at least 2 repositories of Puppy related packages ) have a problem of overhead in outside contributions which don't seem to provide source for the object distributed.

A single example is the pet package for dosbox-cvs-0.71 ( http://dotpups.de/dotpups/Emulators/dosbox-cvs-0.71-i486.pet ). The forum post by jamesbond states it is from cvs 18 July 2007 ( changelog 0.71 ). Following the link to where it states the source is located one finds a CVS-Compile site where the CVS source is updated daily. Going on to sourceforge for the source used to build the pet package one finds dosbox-0.71 release but it is dated 30 July 2007. Who can tell where the actual source used in the pet package is located. This is exactly what the GPL requires, the source from which the object was built.

To Leachim in addition to Barry & John:

Quote:
So if I am not profit-oriented and just include precompiled GPL-code without modifications in my project, I do not have to supply the source code of this unmodified parts myself!


If you distribute object code you must provide the source code it was created with. The T2 site is not obligated to provide me with anything as they have not provided me with object code. If there site disappears, is blocked by national quirkiness ( China comes to mind ), or any other action on their part which makes the alternate method of distribution to fail, there seems to be no backup. I am confused as to the status of your offer for a source CD as well. The page states it is available, however one of your forum posts states you have stopped offering it.

Perhaps what happened to MEPHIS directing people to use the UBUNTU source will explain it better.

http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205

To jamesbond specifically and fyi for all else.

I have no problem asking for source when I can't find it. Please attempt to build Puppy from scratch yourself from the PFS web page and see what you encounter.

As to finding source, suppose I just check the GCC version in Puppy ( 3.4.4 ) and download from gcc.gnu.org . Unfortunately the source in Puppy has additional patches applied ( look in T2 source tarball ), so I wouldn't be starting at the same point as Puppy.

Since I have recently finished most of my efforts in porting GCC to a new platform ( IBM Mainframe ) I thought it would be prudent to perhaps attempt an upgrade to 4.2.1 for Puppy along with the glibc and binutils while a lot of the internals were still fresh in my mind.

Quote:
It would be prudent, polite, civilised, and most importantly, common sense to ask first before jumping to conclusions and accusing people of GPL violations.


I haven't accused anyone of anything, I have only made statements of fact.

Phil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
John Doe

Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 1689
Location: Michigan, US

PostPosted: Thu 09 Aug 2007, 01:17    Post subject:  

halfmeg wrote:
Quote:
It would be prudent, polite, civilised, and most importantly, common sense to ask first before jumping to conclusions and accusing people of GPL violations.


I haven't accused anyone of anything, I have only made statements of fact.


but perhaps quite a strange introduction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Dougal


Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 2505
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

PostPosted: Thu 09 Aug 2007, 08:56    Post subject:  

Halfmeg: As far as I understand, what you are saying about GPL violation is nonsense.
Barry is supposed to be able to produce the code on demand. That means that if you email him and say "Oi, mate, I want the code for Puppy", then you should be able to get a cd from him with all the code. (I think he wrote it on this forum about a year ago -- saying that's what the FSF lawyers told him.)

If distros were supposed to keep repositories of all their sources then most distros existing today would be in violation of the GPL.

Regarding the dosbox example, it's not an official package and hence has nothing to do with Barry or Puppy -- only packages in the Puppy repository are related to Barry.

As for the problem with T2 and PFS, you need to keep somehting in mind: you are the first person who got up off their arse and actually used PFS! Barry created it and no one has bothered using it, while there have been plenty of people pestering him on his blog about "when will there be a 64 bit/SMP Puppy?"
So you can't really expect Barry to waste his time keeping the PFS scripts up-to-date when they're not used.

I think T2 are more to blame here than Barry. They actually do distribute binaries, so you'd expect them to keep their repositories (I used to go to their repositories, to get packages that match Puppy's libs -- then one day they suddenly disappeared!).

If you want to try and find the correct URLs for packaegs, my advice would be to go to the T2 website, then look at the "package matrix". It will have the packages for the current T2, but you can find the different project
download pages there.

Something I think would be better, though, would be to try and convince Barry to upgrade the entire Puppy filesystem (long overdue), then you'll have an updated PFS to build the (long overdue) SMP/64 bit Puppy...

_________________
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ChiJoan

Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Thu 09 Aug 2007, 10:03    Post subject: How about for Dual P3 Slot 1 motherboards?
Subject description: I can't wait to see Puppy use both of the CPUs...
 

Hello All,

I tested the CD Barbie Extended and it booted up, but like Mepis CD only saw one CPU. PCLinuxOS saw both though. I'm still testing though...last night Open Suse died on install and it has 512 MB RAM and a 60 GIG hard drive, maybe I'll have to try a newer NV card with more RAM?

If Puppy someday has support for these old server boards, I bet it will the fastest Distro anyware. I bought the mobo and CPUs for only $20.00, the full-tower Gateway 2000 case and special P4 power supply with the added 6 AUX plug did the trick.

Keep up the great work on Puppy Guys and Gals,
ChiJoan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Leachim

Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Thu 09 Aug 2007, 10:12    Post subject: Re: How about for Dual P3 Slot 1 motherboards?
Subject description: I can't wait to see Puppy use both of the CPUs...
 

ChiJoan wrote:
... only saw one CPU.

Just download the "cutting edge kernel" sources and configure the kernel to your taste!

I have a E6600 Core 2 Duo cpu on my main PC and enjoy the speedup of compiler runs (make -j 3) everyday! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 2 [27 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1042s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0077s) ][ GZIP on ]