Re: [MirageOS-devel] Mirage on Xen/ARM status

[Thomas Leonard <talex5@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 17 June 2014 17:23, Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2014, at 11:26, Thomas Leonard <talex5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A few random notes:
>>>>
>>>> - Lack of progress reports from mirage is a problem on x86, but it's
>>>> worse on ARM because it's so much slower.
>>>
>>> Yes, this one has a bug open on mirage/mirage. We need to tee the output 
>>> from the tool really.
>>
>> [ https://github.com/mirage/mirage/issues/205 ]
>
> This is addressed in the forthcoming Mirage 1.2.0 tool, with the pull req 
> being tested in:
>
> https://github.com/mirage/mirage/pull/252
>
> The main difference is that `mirage` no longer calls OPAM directly.  It just 
> generates a Makefile with a `make depend` target that does the honours, so it 
> can be called explicitly.
>
> It also exports OPAMVERBOSE and OPAMYES from the Makefile, so it's easier to 
> override it if quiet output is needed instead.
>
> I'll probably release Mirage 1.2.0 tomorrow with this change unless anyone 
> finds an issue.  I anticipate that the only fallout will be Travis scripts 
> that need to have a "make depend" inserted somewhere.

Thanks; that's much better! I've rebased the arm-preview branch onto
this version.


-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA  BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel