Yeah, quite correct... been a while since I did two different .configs same source that I wanted to use.. :)
--B On Thu, 03/06/03 at 13:38:34 -0800, Doug Gorley wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > So, not only is this OK, but it's a good idea if I want to experiment with > different kernels from the same source, yes? Otherwise, if I compiled two > kernels from the vanilla-sources, wouldn't the modules from the second > clobber those from the first? > > > The kernel 'knows' it's name, and all packages that install kernel > > modules also look at the same version that the kernel in /usr/src/linux > > knows (/usr/src/linux/include/version.h (or something of the sort)), so > > changing the name and recompiling works just fine and dandy. > > > > --Brandon > > > > On Thu, 03/06/03 at 13:16:43 -0800, Doug Gorley wrote: > >> Good afternoon (PST) list, > >> > >> I'm trying to get a little more comfortable with kernel configuration, > >> and have just compiled a 2.4.20 kernel from the vanilla-sources that > >> uses modules wherever possible. Following the Kernel HOWTO at > >> http://www.tldp.org/, I changed my Makefile to read > >> > >> EXTRAVERSION = -Carnage_2003-03-06 > >> > >> Now, what I've noticed is that in /lib/modules, I now have separate > >> directories called 2.4.20 and 2.4.20-Carnage_2003-03-06. Will the new > >> kernel automatically know that it's modules are in the directory > >> bearing it's name, or do I now have to somehow tell my kernel where to > >> look? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- > >> Doug Gorley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > -- > Doug Gorley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
