Peter, thanks again for your comments. Hopefully this will be the final question!
I've now compiled a kernel using the 2.4.20 sources and the Bering config file. I used: make clean make dep make bzImage and ended up with a kernel of 640KB, whereas the "linux" file on the Bering floppy is a mere 518KB. Could adding Math Emulation have added that much? Or should I have entered something different from "make bzImage", i.e. is there some command that creates a smaller file? Or is there something else wrong? If anyone could help me over this final hurdle, it would be much appreciated. If I do get to the stage of having a decent, small, non-FPU kernel based on 2.4.20, is this something that could be stored on the website for other people with ancient 486SXs? Thanks Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Mueller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 February 2003 23:22 > To: 'Nick Taylor'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [leaf-user] Bering Kernel Source? > > > Hi Nick, > > > I've downloaded the source for kernel 2.4.20 from kernel.org. > > great > > > I'm assuming that using the config file that you pointed me to, > > adjusted so that the Math-Emulation flag is on, I should be able > > to build the kernel that I need? > > mod it however you'd like, but be a little careful with the > modules like > iptables (leave them the way they are unless you want to > create a custom > modules.lrp). > > > The patches that were in the 1.1 directory: > > > > bridge-nf-0.0.7-against-2.4.19.diff.gz > > grsecurity-1.9.9c-2.4.20.patch.gz > > helpers-2.4.20.patch.gz > > linux-2.4.19-openssl-0.9.6b-mppe.patch.gz > > I didn't apply these to mine, but you might want them. I know the > openssl-mppe patch is for PPTP functionality and the > bridge-nf is some kind > of unusual bridging patch. By looking at the source or using > google you can > probably find out what the other two are fairly quickly. > > > I assume that I apply all of these to the 2.4.20 source that I've > > obtained? Is that correct? I guess I'm a little confused as some > > of these patches appear to be for 2.4.19... > > Usually when you see older versions in a "CURRENT" directory > it means the > patches will apply cleanly to the current. So in this case I > would assume > the 2.4.19's will apply against 2.4.20. > > > Once I've done all that, I'm also assuming that I can use the > > precompiled modules for 2.4.20 without having to worry about > > recompiling them too. > > yes, AFAIK. if you have problems you can always make modules > and replace > the problem modules with ones from your specific build. > > > Could someone let me know if I'm way off track here? > > AFAIK you're ok.. you're pretty much doing what I did and it > worked for me. > Hopefully we're not both off track. ;) > > P > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
