Linux-Setup Digest #22, Volume #20 Sun, 12 Nov 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
cd rom drive will no longer mount - details below ("misterbooboo")
Re: LinuxMandrake 6.0 is disgusting ("Bart Declercq")
Re: lilo not automatically start ("core")
Re: HELP: Dual OS: Win2000 and Redhat 7.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: RH 7.0/Win2K Dual Boot Trouble ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux+Win2k+win98??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: lilo not automatically start ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and Change of server (cambio del server) (SirPsychoSexy)
Re: cd rom drive will no longer mount - details below ("The infamous \"Brian\"")
Re: Windows/Linux : Disk size issue (Richard Senior)
LAN ethernet networking help needed (Allen and Erin Brandt)
kernel: make bzImage ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linuxiso.org: How to create a bootable CD? (Frederic Faure)
Re: reduce memory usage in Linux (David)
Re: RH 7.0/Win2K Dual Boot Trouble (Svend Olaf Mikkelsen)
Re: Lilo boot option not working (Svend Olaf Mikkelsen)
Re: Windows/Linux : Disk size issue ("Chris Jones")
Re: kernel: make bzImage (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rasmus_B=F8g_Hansen?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "misterbooboo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat
Subject: cd rom drive will no longer mount - details below
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:37:59 -0600
Cdrom (/mnt/cdrom --> /dev/hdc) no longer allows mount :-(
Error message is:
"Drivemount command failed.
mount wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on dev/cdrom,
or too many mounted filesystems.
(aren't you trying to mount an extended partition,
instead of some logical partition inside?)"
Error message the same when attempting cdrom mount from
command line or from X.
All worked fine and then suddenly kablooie! <g>
I rather suspect I forgot to umount as usr then remounted as root
or some such. My brain seems to be defective. I tried fsck in
various ways after reading its man page and I followed its prompts
as well (from command line). Fsck seems to think I have a
superblock problem. I confess to complete ignorance. What is a
superblock, or where can I read up on it?
System is:
PII 433 with 64MB SDRAM
6 GB hd which dual boots via LILO to 2GB Win95 FAT32 and 4GB Linux
Linux portion is divided into swap of 128MB, boot of 16MB and remainder to /
Linux = RedHat 7
Gnome with sawfish wm
XFree86 4.0.1
Urls, suggestions, or whatever appreciated.
I just did something stupid as usual, I am sure.
My proper e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for your time,
--
Jon - I love Jesus Christ
http://www.jonsplace.org/
------------------------------
From: "Bart Declercq" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LinuxMandrake 6.0 is disgusting
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:43:29 GMT
Reality check required:
The install asked you if it could repartition the harddisk, you selected
"OK", it does what you asked it to do, and now you come here to complain
that it actually did what it said it would do?
May I show you what happens when you install Windows (NT,W2K, 9x, Me) on a
PC which already has a Linux installed :
- *Without asking*, all of these "operating systems" will overwrite the
Master Boot Record, thereby rendering your Linux unbootable if you used a
standard type of installation for them (installing LILO to the MBR), they
don't even give you the option of not doing it. In the case of the
Windows9x-series (including Me) you cannot even repartition during
installation and, unlike what you yourself state in your post, Windows9x
does *NOT* ask you where it should install itself if there are multiple
harddisks/partitions.
You condemn "Redhat, Caldera, Corel and other companies" for this, when what
you tried to install was _Mandrake_ Linux 6.0 (a version which is by now
quite old, there being a version 7.2 of Mandrake available, with mouse
support during installation!)
Don't mistake your own ignorance for incapability of Linux-distributions,
and, more importantly, learn from your mistakes (and I really mean learn
from them, not just say "linux sux" and walk away, try to find out why stuff
went wrong, because in this case at least, it's pretty clear you where at
fault, and not Mandrake Linux).
Bart Declercq
(Who lost at least two Linux-installations before figuring out how to get it
running peacefully alongside Win2K, al my important data was backupped, so I
"lost" only some spare time and learned a lot in the process).
yongelok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> My PC has two hard disks, and they are configured as C: drive
> and D: drive. On the C: dirve I installed Win98 Operating System.
> On the D: drive it is empty.
>
> The other day I tried to install LinuxMandrake 6.0 onto my
> D: drive. So I followed the setup instruction in the manual.
> I insert the Linux floppy boot disk, and start the computer.
>
> To my surprise and my disgust, LinuxMandrake 6.0 tries to
> repartition my C: drive( or the first available hard dirve, to
> be more accurate ). It did not intelligently give me some choice
> as to on which hard drive I want to install the Linux if it detects
> there are more than one hard drives in the system. Such feature is
> routinely expected in the Windows software. So much for
> the "revolutionary" Linux OS.
>
> LinuxMandrake 6.0 also falsely reports that the partition table
> on my c: drive is corrupt, and offered to repartition it. I
> regrettably tabbed "OK" ( I even can not use a mouse during setup ).
> Then LinuxMandrake 6.0 overwrites the partition table on my
> C: drive without WARNING ME THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD RENDER ANY
> EXISTING OS ON MY C: DRIVE UNUSABLE !
>
> Immediately after that I changed my mind and chose to go back
> to Win98. So I took out the LinuxMandrake 6.0 floppy boot disk
> and restart the computer. But to my dismay, my c: drive is now
> toasted. All I got is a blank screen. I even did not get a blinking
> cursor. I now can not read a single byte from my C: drive.
>
> So much for this "revolutionary" OS hype. Now I would rather
> gleefully pay $1000000 to buy a copy of Window OS than to try
> those disgusting free Linux shit.
>
> Why can RedHat, Caldera, Corel and other companies offer Linux
> software( which contains millions of lines of code ) for such
> a low price? Because they do not write these software themselves.
> They merely copy it from the Internet, and repackage it.
>
> If the consumers know the insider story about how these
> low-priced linux OS software is produced, I think they
> will fell ripped-off and will revolt again RedHat.
------------------------------
From: "core" <x>
Subject: Re: lilo not automatically start
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:42:47 +0800
the lilo seems outside the 1024 cylinder, so how can fix it?
when i recompiled the lilo, the warning msg showed:
device 0x0303 exceeds 1024 cylinder limit
"Stanislaw Flatto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l„ó
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It helps if LILO is installed in MBR.
> Does it?
>
> core wrote:
>
> > after i install rh7, the lilo won't boot up automatically. How can i
make it
> > boot automatically? Thank
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HELP: Dual OS: Win2000 and Redhat 7.0
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:51:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> RedHat docs -- and a number of past posters to this newsgroup -- say
you
> need to follow the procedures in the Linux + NT Loader mini-HOWTO if
you
> are using NT (and hence Windows 2000). This involves putting LILO
onto
> the Linux / or /boot partition, then using the NT loader after all --
> and NOT putting LILO on the MBR.
>
> Is that documentation wrong? Why?
No it's not wrong, and maybe I should not advise people to put LILO in
the MBR, but what the documentation doesn't tell is why to use the NT-
loader. There are a few reasons for this:
1) Windows versions are notorious for wrecking the MBR. If they need to
reinstall, upgrade or whatsoever, there's no way to tell the OS not to
touch the MBR (perhaps with NT there is, I don't really know)
2) IIRC there are setups, where you cannot use LILO to point to the NT
loader (I've only read this, never expierienced it myself, and cannot
think of a good reason for this) Using the NT loader to chain to LILO,
will always work.
So because LILO really doesn't care if it's in the MBR or not, and the
NT-loader might (As i said, i've never seen this) the doc's say put NT-
loader in the MBR. In my setup, where NT is installed in one partition,
there's no reason why LILO couldn't chain to the NT-loader, and
therefor I use LILO as my main bootloader.
> If it is wrong, then exactly what is it one needs to do to "adjust"
> lilo.conf, and are there some parameters to pass to /sbin/lilo when
you
> run it?
>
nothing to it, set it up as any other WIN OS
The actual NT bootloader is in the bootrecord of the partition it was
installed to. So add this to lilo.conf:
other=/dev/hda1
label=NT
> If it is in fact OK to put LILO on the MBR with Windows 2000 on an
NTFS
> partition first, are there advantages/disadvantages -- in user
> interface, performance, anything -- to doing that vs. keeping NT
loader?
>
Yes there are, and this is exactly why I like to use LILO.
After you recompiled your kernel, and reran /sbin/lilo, you can
normally reboot and use the new kernel, but if you use the NT loader,
and forgot to copy the new bootsector to floppy, for exchange with NT,
you can only boot linux from a floppy.
This is because the NTloader needs a bootsector.img to run, which
actually contains LILO.
The other way around (LILO in the MBR), would cause no trouble, since
LILO points to the correct NT bootcode anyway.(if NT doesn't wreck the
MBR after a reinstall)
> (I just have not seen any straightforward answers to these questions.)
>
> Also, I thought one needed to be sure that /boot was within the 1024
> cylinder limit (i.e., before the first 8.something GB mark).
>
Yes, for older BIOS's and older LILO's this was true. It's still a good
thing to take into account.
1024 cylinders is the largest number that can be used in addressing,
the 8G depends on the translation of the CHS values, and could be at
another point.
Eric
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RH 7.0/Win2K Dual Boot Trouble
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:01:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just what do you mean by "use LILO instead" -- replace the NT loader
on
> the MBR with LILO? That's not what RedHat says to do! They refer one
> to the Linux + NT Loader mini-HOWTO which is very specific about that
> not being the way.
>
> And if you do mean to put LILO on the MBR, are you dead certain that
it
> will still be possible to start Windows 2000?
>
This is exactly what I meant, I replied in another thread to this same
question (which IIRC was also by you)
And as I am not dead-certain that it will work (but it does work here
(with NT4), I'm dead-certain about that!) I would have to advise you to
make a copy of the MBR before you start anything, so:
dd if=/dev/hda of=/boot/MBR_NTLoader_on_hda.img bs=512 count=1
This way you can always restore the old MBR (But I doubt you'll need it)
Eric
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux+Win2k+win98???
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:14:04 GMT
In article <TqiP5.535$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"SoudBoy0" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I am stuck needing all three and would like to boot 98 on hdb. I
do not
> have aney fat partitions on hda. Lilo says its loading win 98 but
after
> that, nothing. Can win98 boot from hdb? Does it need a fat partition
on hda?
> Is there any thein special needed? I have win2k and linux on hda and
thay
> boot fine. I am using mandrake 7.0 and lilo setup shows no errors.
>
> Aney help would be greatly aprecated.
> thanks, SpudBoy
How did you even manage to install it there?
I've tried this once, but it refused to install on anything but hda.
So I assume you disconnected hda first, made hdb hda and installed that
way?
If so then use the map-drive to option the other poster supplied, if
that's not how you did it, you must tell us how you installed it,
because that might be important.
Eric
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lilo not automatically start
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:17:06 GMT
In article <8uloga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"core" <x> wrote:
> the lilo seems outside the 1024 cylinder, so how can fix it?
> when i recompiled the lilo, the warning msg showed:
> device 0x0303 exceeds 1024 cylinder limit
>
post the content of your /etc/lilo.conf file, and the result of
`fdisk -l /dev/hda`
Then we can help you
eric
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: SirPsychoSexy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,;,;,comp.os.linux.hardware,;,it.comp.os.linux.sys
Subject: Re: Linux and Change of server (cambio del server)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:48:11 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ezio PAGLIA wrote:
> Versione per il newsgroup italiano:
>
> Cari amministratori linux,
>
> grazie anche al vostro aiuto, abbiamo imparato i meccanismi di
> ripartenza, ricostruendoci una rescue diskette con il kernel,
> applicando i moduli opportuni etc.
>
> Pero' ora mi chiedo che cosa fare se in caso di crash bisogna cambiare
> macchina oppure in ogni caso vorremmo cambiare disco con quello di
> un'altra tecnologia. Supponete che abbiamo toccato fortemente ed in
> maniera a volte difficile elementi del sistema e che quindi quello che
> e' nel salvataggio completo ci interessa fortemente. Non e' cioe'
> fattibile rifare da capo gli ambienti di dns, sendmail, procmail,
> webserver, news server, squid, ftp etc.
>
> Cosa occorre fare per trasportare il sistema su un nuovo disco ?
>
> Ezio.
Usare un RAID2 almeno anche se su ide.....se devi mettere in piedi un
server commerciale non puoi non pensarci.
Per il resto ho spostato un hd da una macchina rotta a una sana e rimesso
in piedi tutto in circa un ora (con una certa comoditą e qualche errore).
I kernel "supportotutto_e_di_pił" di default di RH sono molto comodi per
queste cose...
Giulio
------------------------------
From: "The infamous \"Brian\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: cd rom drive will no longer mount - details below
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:36:17 GMT
Hi Jon:
misterbooboo wrote in message ...
>Cdrom (/mnt/cdrom --> /dev/hdc) no longer allows mount :-(
What command are you attempting to use?
Here is what I do;
First add a line to your /etc/fstab (fstab is Linux for File System TABle);
/dev/hdc /cdrom iso9660 noauto,ro 0 0
Now you should be able to mount your CD rom like this;
mount /cdrom <enter>
You will not be able to open your CD drive door until you unmount the CD
rom;
umount /cdrom <enter>
^ (not a typo)
Try not to change posting names too often; It gets confusing.
Best regards,
Brian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Senior)
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,linux.redhat.install,uk.comp.os.linux,uklinux.help.newbies
Subject: Re: Windows/Linux : Disk size issue
Date: 12 Nov 2000 11:07:18 GMT
On 11 Nov 2000, Chris Jones wrote:
> I wish to install linux (redhat) as a dual boot option on a machine
> currently running windows98 only. I need to increase the disk space to do
> this so would like to replace the current 1Gig disk with a somewhat larger
> one (20Gig or so). Now, I suspect my machine may suffer from the 8.4 Gig
> 1024 cylinder limit BIOS issue which would effect windows but not I gather
> linux.
Replace? Have you considered adding the second disk on the secondary IDE
channel (/dev/hdc), setting your CDROM as a slave to one of the disks if
necessary (/dev/hdb or /dev/hdd). You could then leave the smaller disk
dedicated to Windows (no re-installation required!), following advice in
other posts regarding the /boot partition for Linux.
Digressing somwhat, I would probably only allocate part of the 20GB disk
at installation and decide later if I want an extra Windows drive or
additional Linux partitions -- gives you room to maneouvre.
--
Regards,
Richard Senior
------------------------------
From: Allen and Erin Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LAN ethernet networking help needed
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:59:34 +0100
Hi, I can only work on Linux sporadically. I've completed several steps
to getting my computer to network. I installed the network card driver
and re-compiled the kernel a while back. Now I want to check to see if
the driver was installed properly and if it is working. Is there a log
file at boot time that will tell me if the network card was detected and
the driver installed during boot? Assuming I have the cables and the two
computers hooked up to my hub, how can I get them to communicate? How
can I mount the network drives?
Thanks,
Al Brandt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: kernel: make bzImage
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:59:53 GMT
I'm having trouble compiling a working kernel... any help out there?
After a 2.2.17 download, make config, & a make dep... I try a "make bzImage"
giving me:
as86 -0 -a -o bbootsect.o bbootsect.s
make[1]: as86: Command not found
make[1]: *** [bbootsect.o] Error 127
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot'
make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
1st, I don't know what as86 does... but I really just want to avoid the
errors. Any ideas? Thanks soo much,
jeff
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frederic Faure)
Subject: Re: Linuxiso.org: How to create a bootable CD?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:15:00 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:31:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod
Smith) wrote:
>If you had a choice to switch from Joliet to ISO-9660, you did *NOT*
>use a "create CD-R from image file" or similar option. As I said, the
>filesystem (ISO-9660, Joliet, HFS, etc.) is embedded within the image
>file, so that option is 100% meaningless when creating a CD-R in this
>way. To be sure, look at the contents of the unbootable CD. If you see
>the .iso file you downloaded, you did it wrong. If you see a bunch of
>files and subdirectories, including README files and whatnot, then it
>was done correctly.
The output CD does show the usual RedHat contents of a bootable CD
(README.TXT /dosutils, /RedHat, etc.), but it wouldn't boot. I found
more infos on turning an ISO image into a bootable CD, so I'll give it
another try. I have already installed OS's from bootable CDs on that
computer, so it is capable of booting off a CD.
Thx for the help
FF.
------------------------------
From: David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: reduce memory usage in Linux
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 06:46:51 -0600
DualIP wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:46:27 +0000, Michael V. Ferranti
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Check your swap partition size. It should be at least double that of
> >your RAM.
>
> To me the most stupid rule in the book.
> When I upgrade and double my RAM , I must double swap partition size
> as well??
> Seems to me like the upgraded box would require less in stead of more
> swap space
>
> DualIP
Doubling swap is only needed if you have a small amount of physical
memory. It usually isn't needed to have a swap partition over 128 MB
unless maybe if the system is very heavily used.
--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
Completed more work units than: 98.801% of seti users +/- 0.01%.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Svend Olaf Mikkelsen)
Subject: Re: RH 7.0/Win2K Dual Boot Trouble
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:27:22 GMT
Doug Pippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Howdy folks - I'm trying to set up my dual boot Red Hat 7 and Windows
>2000 system to start Linux from the hard drive using the Win2K boot
>loader. I've stripped the boot sector from my Linux boot floppy (first
>512K), saved it to the file bootsect.lnx, copied it to the root dir
>of my C: drive and modified my C:\BOOT.INI file thusly:
>
>[boot loader]
>timeout=30
>default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
>[operating systems]
>multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional"
>/fastdetect
>C:\BOOTSECT.LNX="Red Hat Linux v7.0"
>
>It's not working. When I select Linux nothing happens. I get a blank screen
>with the cursor in the upper right-hand corner but the system does not
>boot. I've also tried stripping the boot sector from my Linux /boot partition
>on the hard disk with the same results - no boot. I can boot from my Linux
>floppy just fine. Does anyone have any suggestions?
>
>DP
Are you certain that you installed Lilo on the /boot partition before
you copied the boot sector?
--
Svend Olaf
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Svend Olaf Mikkelsen)
Subject: Re: Lilo boot option not working
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:27:24 GMT
Carl Waring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My Red Hat drive is on the secondary IDE controller set to slave. I
>installed the secondary drive
>after I had set up the primary drive with NT. Both drives are larger than
>1024 cylinders. I'm not too sure what
>I would do with 'lba32', I attach my lilo.conf file for your perusal.
>
>boot = /dev/hdb1
>timeout = 50
>linear
>prompt
> default = dos
> vga = normal
> read-only
>map=/boot/map
>install=/boot/boot.b
>image = /boot/vmlinuz-2.2.14-6.1.1
> label = linux
> root = /dev/hdb8
>other = /dev/hda1
> label = dos
>table =/dev/hda
>
>cw
Secondary slave is not hdb. I however assume the Linux disk is hdb
(primary slave).
The above lilo.conf installs Lilo on hdb1. One possibility then is to
have a DOS MBR on primary master, set hda1 active, copy the boot
sector of hdb1 to a file bootsect.lnx in the root of hda1, and add to
NT boot.ini:
c:\bootsect.lnx="Linux"
--
Svend Olaf
------------------------------
From: "Chris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,linux.redhat.install,uk.comp.os.linux,uklinux.help.newbies
Subject: Re: Windows/Linux : Disk size issue
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:35:37 -0000
Richard Senior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ultl6$cq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Nov 2000, Chris Jones wrote:
>
> > I wish to install linux (redhat) as a dual boot option on a machine
> > currently running windows98 only. I need to increase the disk space to
do
> > this so would like to replace the current 1Gig disk with a somewhat
larger
> > one (20Gig or so). Now, I suspect my machine may suffer from the 8.4 Gig
> > 1024 cylinder limit BIOS issue which would effect windows but not I
gather
> > linux.
>
> Replace? Have you considered adding the second disk on the secondary IDE
> channel (/dev/hdc), setting your CDROM as a slave to one of the disks if
> necessary (/dev/hdb or /dev/hdd). You could then leave the smaller disk
> dedicated to Windows (no re-installation required!), following advice in
> other posts regarding the /boot partition for Linux.
Yes, that certainly is an option I could follow. I was though trying to
explore the replace option since if it is possible I would like to put
windows on the new disk since a) I really need more than 1Gig there - its
already pretty full and b) the new disk will be faster (whether its faster
in my machine is another question). However, thanks for your suggestion.
Following the first (replace) option another possible question has occured
to me. I would have to partition my disk to place c:\windows and possibly
\boot below the 1024 limit and the rest of linux above. However, if my bios
cannot read above 1024 how will I partition the disk correctly here ? Can
fdisk do this in this case or will I need to use some other partitioning
tool ?
cheers Chris
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rasmus_B=F8g_Hansen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel: make bzImage
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:48:04 +0100
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm having trouble compiling a working kernel... any help out there?
>
> After a 2.2.17 download, make config, & a make dep... I try a "make bzImage"
> giving me:
>
> as86 -0 -a -o bbootsect.o bbootsect.s
> make[1]: as86: Command not found
> make[1]: *** [bbootsect.o] Error 127
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot'
> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
>
> 1st, I don't know what as86 does... but I really just want to avoid the
> errors. Any ideas? Thanks soo much,
as86 is the real-mode assambler. LILO loads the kernel into memory. The
bootstrap code made with as86 then uncompresses and boots the kernel.
In other words: your kernel won't boot without this bootstrap code, which
requires as86.
If you are running redhat it is in the dev86 package, which you will have
to install. I think it was called something different in pre-6 releases,
but i don't recall the package name.
Rasmus B. Hansen
---
If you only have a hammer
everything looks like a nail
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.setup) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Setup Digest
******************************
