User1: [890160.173487] VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of mtd_inodefs. Self-destruct in 5 seconds.  Have a nice day...
User1: a little bit of spaceballs eh?
User1: in my kernel you say?
User2: I'm experiencing with precise debootstrap on precise. However it fails very often with "Couldn't download package..." and it happens for different packages for each invocation of debootstrap. Other with similar experience?
User2: *experimenting
User2: Where can I find the default compiler settings for armel and armhf?
User3: sveinse, gcc -dumpmachine
User2: User3 Oh? It returns arm-linux-gnueabi only.
User3: good :)
User3: sveinse, gcc -dumpspecs
User3: that's every default
User2: User3 How do I read it?
User2: I find the specs hard to read. Then perhaps  touch foobar.c ; gcc -c -v foorbar.c  is easier to understand...
User2: Let me ask it another way: We cross compile against natty with options "-march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 -ftree-vectorize -mfloat-abi=softfp -ffast-math -mfpu=neon  -fno-omit-frame-pointer"
User2: 1) Should this line be changed when using precise?
User2: 2) What should the options look like when cross compiling for armhf
User4: User2 when cros compiling for armhf you need to use -mfloat-abi=hard    and  make sure you link against a hard compiled userspace like libgcc
User5: oO( "hard compiled userspace" sounds sweet )
User2: User4 Does the gcc-arm-linux-gnueabi packages include hf libgcc etc?
User4: User2 gcc-arm-linux-gnueabihf  for armhf
User2: User4 How could I miss that.. Thanks
User4: User2 if you use the ubuntu cross compile toolchains then you do not need to pass any extra tune options, they are set by default  like thumb and armv7 optimizations
User4: User2 to clarify if you run gcc -E -v
User4: then gcc will print all default compiled in options
User2: One option ubuntu gcc does not specify is the -mtune= (iirc). Does it have much effect specifying it compared to not?
User4: well they usually pass --with-arch=armv7-a
User2: I've always wondered if it really meant something to have the tune as well as arch.
User4: i cant say off hand without benchmarking if you gain anything by explicitly tune for cortex-a8
User2: Anyways, do you happen to know if ld in 4.6 is compiled with sysroot support this time?
User2: (If you don't, I'll figure it out)
User4: if your code are to be run on neon systems then that do make a little difference
User4: since ubuntu do not enable neon by default to stay compatible with tegra2 cortex-a9 cpus
User6: hi
User6: I have a problem booting Ubuntu 11.04 on the Pandaboard
User6: it freezes at "Enabling oem-config"
User6: 11.10 works
User6: but I actually need 11.04
User6: sooo
User6: is this a known bug?
User4: User6 i think its a known bug. you can remove the /var/lib/oem-config/run file to let the board boot up
User4: using 11.04
User6: isn't that neccessary for something?
User4: the oem-config are the setup wizard
User6: ah
User6: thank you
User4: youre welcome
User6: huh
User6: now it doesn't freeze
User6: I guess it depends on how you format the sd card
User6: on the first try I used to gparted to delete the partitions and then I used the command to transfer the image to the card
User6: now I didn't format at all and just transfered the image
User4: User6 so.. everything are working now? great,
User6: well let's see if the setup works
User4: what feature do  11.04 offer that is not found in 11.10 and later?
User4: i am curious why you need to use 11.04
User6: User4 there are problems with the player/server robot device server on 11.10
User4: User6 have you checked if this are fixed in 12.04 that gets released next week? (you can get install images today to test)
User6: I don't know
User6: but we need it for a project so it's better for us to use something where we know it will work
User4: thats fine, in which language are the robot programmed in?
User6: dunno, we just need player/server for simulation
User4: User6 ok, good luck with the project.. if you get time left over after its finished.. please come back and i we can check out what the player/server depend on
User6: I'll consider it, thanks
User2: What is the state of armhf compared to armel (and precise)? I.e. can I consider migrating my embedded system from natty armel to precise armhf?
User7: A/wg 8
User8: User2 as it was explained to me, Ubuntu will officially only support armhf from 12.04. All packages in apt repositories should already exist compiled for armhf.
User8: User2 the difference is about the same as the difference between i386 and amd64 in terms of "will my program run or not"
User8: User2 it might run using multiarch
User8: User2 someone else can probably explain it better and more correct
User2: User8 Perhaps my question was a bit, uhm, blunt. We're have been running natty armel on an embedded product for 1.5 years now and its working great. For the next version we're definitely going to upgrade to precise. The question was if we should consider hf (as this would give our apps a huge set of improvements)
User2: Support is not the biggest issue
User8: User2 I see. Well, in that case I think there are people better suited to answer your question than me.
User8: :)
User2: thanks, anyways
User9: i think, the question is already answered
User9: armhf is the supported port for precise. so if your hardware is compatible and your software compiles and is able to pass your testframework (*laughs a little*), go ahead and use precise/armhf
User2: test framework, what is that? :P
User9: that's why i laughed =P
User6: updating packages takes really long...
User2: So if I should make up my own conclusion it would be: armel and armhf will be supported the same way. There is a larger set of FTBFS in armhf. -- yeah, I think we can do a testrun at least
User2: dist-upgrading armel to armhf on a running system is NOT going to be easy, right
User9: easy? i think, thats impossible
User2: Not completely I think
User9: nothing ist completely impossible
User2: What makes it hard is because of glibc and libgcc?
User2: E.g. you can't have both armel and armhf on the same system, right?
User9: because armel and armhf is not abi-compatible, so it can break _everywhere_
User9: not worth the time to try it
User9: with multi-arch, you can
User2: abi incompatible across kernel - userspace as well?
User9: the kernel does not care, if it is compiled for armel or armhf
User9: and it does not care, what the userspace uses (to be clear)
User2: Yes, so the armel libs and the armhf libs could co-exists
User2: except they clash on file-basis, right
User9: with multi-arch, not with editing the sources.list form armel and armhf and do a dist-upgrade
User2: What is multiarch specifically btw
User9: the new hot stuff
User2: :D
User9: sorry, i'm not sophisticated enough with the basis of multiarch
User6: it takes reaaaally long for updates
User6: is that a normal thing?
User9: sorry, Cyberworm. what are you doing?
User6: updating
User9: from what to what?
User6: just the ubuntu 11.04 packages
User9: so a "apt-get update"
User6: yes
User9: i would say, that it is not the normal behaviour (except your hardware (cpu, persistent memory), internet connection, or anything else is very slow)
User6: it's on the pandaboard
ubuntu-arm
Ubuntu IRC