apt-get dist-upgrade breaks lilo
Hi I have a lab with 7 pc's. They have been running first debian 2.0, and then 2.1, for almost two years. The machines are identical and dual boot. The master boot program is NT, and LILO is one of the options on it. There is one hard drive. NT is on the first partion, linux swap on the second, and linux on the third. The kernel is 2.0.36. It has worked fine for all this time. The NT part still does. This week (Tuesday Nov 6) I tried to upgrade to 2.2. I did (from ftp.us.debian.org) apt-get update, apt-get upgrade, and then, on all but one of the seven, apt-get dist-upgrade. Now, on all except the one treated differently, lilo fails with LIL-. The other one still boots just fine, and reports debian 2.2 when it does. I can floppy-boot into the others and the systems seem fine once I do, reporting debian 2.2, and I can run /sbin/lilo on them. The lilo docs say that LIL- is a symptom of geometry mismatch. I have tried various ways, in /etc/lilo.conf, to get the proper geometry to lilo, but without success. When I run /sbin/lilo -q -v -v -v the output is not consistent. I cannot find a guide to the output format so I am not sure if that is a problem. In particular it says, for example, Images: Linux * dev=0x80, hd=183, cyl=58,sct=105, but the cyl and sct numbers are different if I repeat the command. The reported 'partition offset' on the one that works does not agree with that on the ones that don't. I've tried -p fix, -P ignore, -l, with no success. I downgraded to lilo version 20 on one of the machines, again with no success. Can anyone help me get lilo to work? Thanks Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get dist-upgrade breaks lilo. Solved.
Hi I have discovered what I did wrong to cause this problem. The NT bootloader requires that the boot sector of the linux partition be an ordinary file in the NT filesystem. Each time lilo is run that bootsector changes, so the NT file has to be rewritten. That's what I forgot. I copied the new bootsector (dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/bootsec.new bs=512 count=1), mcopied /bootsec.new to a floppy, and copied it to NT from there. Now lilo boots just fine. apt-get dist-upgrade must have asked to rerun lilo, and I said ok, while apt-get upgrade did not, so that's why the boot process was still ok on the one machine that was not dist-upgraded. Thanks Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Charles Kaufman wrote: Hi I have a lab with 7 pc's. They have been running first debian 2.0, and then 2.1, for almost two years. The machines are identical and dual boot. The master boot program is NT, and LILO is one of the options on it. There is one hard drive. NT is on the first partion, linux swap on the second, and linux on the third. The kernel is 2.0.36. It has worked fine for all this time. The NT part still does. This week (Tuesday Nov 6) I tried to upgrade to 2.2. I did (from ftp.us.debian.org) apt-get update, apt-get upgrade, and then, on all but one of the seven, apt-get dist-upgrade. Now, on all except the one treated differently, lilo fails with LIL-. The other one still boots just fine, and reports debian 2.2 when it does. I can floppy-boot into the others and the systems seem fine once I do, reporting debian 2.2, and I can run /sbin/lilo on them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
python-visual and libgl1
Hi I have a .deb file of python-visual from Carnegie-Mellon U. It depends on libgl1. I cannot find libgl1. Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks. Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
listres and viewres
Hi listres and viewres fail with Symbol 'XawWidgetArray' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking followed by Segmentation fault There's some discussion about this under bug report #60390. Is there a way to get these programs to run? Thanks. Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Failed reboot after upgrade
Hi Thanks for the help. On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:37:05AM -0400, charles kaufman wrote: Hi I have just upgraded from 2.1 to frozen. I had some difficulty with apt but the list helped me past it and all seemed well. So I tried to reboot but the reboot failed. . More helpful would be 'dmesg' output. Followup posting this to the list. I tried to summarize it. Of course I could only run dmesg for the version that did boot. Now I don't have that one either since I got past the problem (go down three lines) so dmesg is routine. Have you run or re-run lilo, with an appropirate /etc/lilo.conf file? Yes, when the installation script offered. .. I have discovered what I did wrong. (I have already sent this explanation to the list. But I'm not subscribed and I keep getting 404's when I try to read the August archives so I don't know if that got there.) I reread the upgrade transcript, and found a reference to the change in format of the path statements in modules.conf. Because I had added a line to that file (about the irq and memory address for my network card) the upgrade did not convert that file to the new format and the required modules couldn't be found. Why the reboot failed completely for one kernel but not for another I don't know. But I booted the one that did work, followed the update-modules directions and they now both boot just fine. Some of the messages that fly by during the upgrade are critical, but it's not easy to tell which those are. The release notes said if you're updating from 2.0 or earlier, than do (something about update-modules, that I didn't want to know if I didn't have to). Since I was updating from 2.1, that made me think I didn't have to study update-modules too carefully. That was wishful thinking. The 2.1 was itself an update from 2.0. Maybe that's why the configuration file was not in the required format. Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Failed reboot after upgrade
Hi I have just upgraded from 2.1 to frozen. I had some difficulty with apt but the list helped me past it and all seemed well. So I tried to reboot but the reboot failed. Some of the messages at reboot were about looking for a cdrom- one brand after another, at 0x340 or 0x280 or 0x638 and on and on; others were about attempts to load modules and others about kernel mismatches. It finally hung. I pushed reset and choose a different kernel at the lilo prompt and that did boot but only after many 'unable to handle kernel paging request' messages during 'process modpobe.' The kernel that worked is 2.0.36; the one I normally use is 2.0.34 and that is what was running when I upgraded. I did not change anything, that I know of, that had to do with modules. The release notes say if upgrading from Debian 2.0 or earlier that 'update-modules force' should be run, but since I had 2.1 I did not do that. I do have the script record of the upgrade. Help. Please respond to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Charles Kaufman
failed upgrade-solved
Hi Thanks for the help. On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Mathew Johnston wrote: Years of experience have told me that clean reinstalls are ALWAYS better than upgrades, so do that if possible. Otherwise, I reccomend recompiling the kernel and modules, then doing a make install in the kernel. But dont take my word for it, im sure someone more knowledgable will respond :) I read the upgrade transcript, and found a reference to the change in format of the path statements in modules.conf. Because I had added a line to that file (about the irq and memory address for my network card) the upgrade did not covert that file to the new format and the required modules couldn't be found. Why the reboot failed completely for one kernel but not for another I don't know. But I booted the one that did work, followed the update-modules directions and they now both boot just fine. Some of the messages that fly by during the upgrade are critical, but it's not easy to tell which those are. The release notes made me think I didn't have to study update-modules too carefully. That was wishful thinking. Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upgrade to potato; tetex-bin depends
I have just tried to upgrade from stable to frozen. I did apt-get update, which worked except for one timed-out file. I did it again to get that file. I then did 'apt-get --fix-broken --show-upgraded dist-upgrade'. That seemed to go ok but stopped without asking very many configuration questions, and reporting 47 out of (about) 150 packages not installed. I repeated the above command but it reported the same thing. I then installed some of the 47, with dpkg, and that seemed to go normally. I then tried apt-get -f install and that reports Reading Package Lists ... Done Building Dependency Tree ... Done Correcting Dependencies and goes and goes and goes, using 99% cpu, for 5 or 10 or 20 minutes, which is as long as I've let it go before aborting it. I've installed most of the 47, but am stuck on tetex-bin. 'dpkg -i tetex-bin' reports 'tetex-bin depends on libz1, which is not installed'. I can't find libz1, but tetex-bin's depends, in the package archive, does include zlib1g. Should I let apt-get run as long as it wants? Is there a libz1? Am I done for? Thanks Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please reply directly as I am not a subscriber.)
install manual for x86
I am planning to repartition a disk that came with w98 on it. The installation manual for intel x86 discusses repartioning and refers to a program called fips, available in the tools/ directory on your nearest Debian mirror. Can anyone help me to find that directory and/or that program? Thanks Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: install manual for x86
Thank you for the directions to fips. Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: g++ and libstdc++2.9 circular dependence
Dear Kevin dpkg -i foo bar seemed a little bit criptic to me. In case it was to you as well, you can just type dpkg -i g++*.deb libstdc++2.9-dev*.deb Both packages will be installed without any problem. I know this because I had the same question as you had, and this was the (successful) suggestion I was given. Thanks for the translation. :) Chuck Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
g++ and libstdc++2.9 circular dependancy
I am trying to install the version of g++ in stable, using dpkg. g++ depends on libstdc++2.9-dev and libstdc++2.9-dev depends on g++. dpkg will not allow the installation of one without the other, as in catch-22. Must the installation be forced? There is a bug report about a similar problem with 2.10 but none about 2.9 that I can find. Charles Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
latex2html and GIF
Dear Debian I cannot make latex2html produce images in GIF format. There is an option in the config file which may be GIF or PNG. When I use PNG (the default) it works. When I use GIF it reports 'this version of pstoimg does not support GIF format.' I do have netpbm-nonfree installed as well as netpbm. chuck kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new hard drive install
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, David Wright wrote: Yes it really says FAT 12 ... which you presumably don't have. (Actually I just saw my Certainly not due to anything I did (on purpose, that is). very first FAT12 partition yesterday when I was mending someone's disk geometry settings. It was 9MB in size, which I'd guess might be too small for FAT16.) So it's picking up garbage. fdisk -l Disk /dev/hda: 255 Heads 63 Sectors 1027 Cylinders Units =Cylinders of 16065*512 bytes Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hda1 *11 64 51408+ 6 DOS 16 bit=32M /dev/hda2 * 65 65192 1028160 83 Linux native /dev/hda3 193 193205 104422+ 82 Linux swap Segmentation fault. Doesn't that raise the question as to how you partitioned the disk in the first place? Presumably that didn't segfault or you wouldn't have been able to write the partition table at all. It was the same program-linux fdisk. Did you use a different program, in which case what does it say and does it agree with the above? Or did you use the same program in which case it's a bit worrying that a program can write a partition table which it itself can't then read. It looks like I should repartition the disc and try again. It just seemed so close to working. And the error message is so clear. Oh well. Thanks again for the help. Chuck Kaufman
Re: Hard disk problems
Dear Kaa: Thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, [ Kaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]@hotmail.com wrote: Yes, but given that the kernel believes there is FAT12 partition, it seems that there is something wrong with the partition table or at least the reading thereof. Is the low-level reformatting/repartitioning an option? I'm trying to avoid repartitioning. I will if nothing else works. But I don't know what 'low level format' means. I remember doing that for DOS before there was IDE, but thought it wasn't needed anymore. Thanks for all the information. Chuck Kaufman
Re: new hard drive install
Hi Not necessary. Recently i repartitioned my HD, moved Linux from hda2 to hda1. Never had any trouble after i restored my filesystem from backups and reran lilo (after editing lilo.conf and fstab) I did almost that. Instead of restoring from backups I had the old and the new hard drives mounted at the same time and used cpio. Did you have to tell the kernel where the new swap partition was? Chuck Kaufman
Re: new hard drive install
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Stephen Pitts wrote: Check the boot= in LILO. I just recently had similar problems and it turned out that I was writing my new lilo to /dev/hda1 instead of /dev/hda. Thanks. I've tried each of those and get the same error either way. Chuck Kaufman
Re: new hard drive install
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Brad wrote: Yes it really says FAT 12 What does Linux fdisk -l show? Here it is. The segmentation fault at the end is part of the output.(not encouraging) The disk is not all partitioned. fdisk -l The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 1027. This is larger than 1024 and may cause problems with 1)software that runs at boot time (e.g. LILO) 2)booting and partitioning software from other OS's (e.g. DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK) Disk /dev/hda: 255 Heads 63 Sectors 1027 Cylinders Units =Cylinders of 16065*512 bytes Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hda1 *11 64 51408+ 6 DOS 16 bit=32M /dev/hda2 * 65 65192 1028160 83 Linux native /dev/hda3 193 193205 104422+ 82 Linux swap Segmentation fault. Chuck Kaufman
Re: new hard drive install
Hi Thanks Brad. On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Brad wrote: kernel panic:VFS:Unable to mount root fs on 03:03 It's still trying to mount root from hda3. i don't know why, since you say you've checked and rechecked to make sure /etc/lilo.conf is correct and you've run lilo with the correct settings... Since i can't think of anything else, is the device correct? $ ls -l /dev/hda2 brw-rw 1 root disk 3, 2 Jun 17 22:13 /dev/hda2 ^^ ls -l /dev/hda2 gives brw-r--r-- 1 root root 3,2 Jul 28 1998 /dev/hda2 That's before it's mounted-I have been booting with tomsrtbt (thanks to Tom!) so it might be different if it actually boots from that device. Is there somewhere in the kernel that remembers it used to boot from /dev/hda3? chuck
Re: new hard drive install
Hello again On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, David Wright wrote: Quoting charles kaufman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): kernel panic:VFS:Unable to mount root fs on 03:03 Is there somewhere in the kernel that remembers it used to boot from /dev/hda3? Yes. When you copy a kernel (e.g. I copy /boot/vmlinuz to c:\loadlin\zimage for loadlin to boot from dos) you need to rdev it. Typerdev kernel-imageto see what it's set to and rdev kernel-image /dev/hda2to set it. This saves having to tell it where root is every time you boot it. Thanks. But the lilo manpage says rdev is no longer needed since the parameters can be set from the lilo prompt. I tried it anyway. With the new drive at /mnt, I did rdev /mnt/vmlinuz /dev/hda2, and rdev -s /mnt/vmlinuz /dev/hda3. I then then reattached the new drive onto the first ide connector and rebooted. It failed in exactly the same way as before. In case they contains any hints, here are the messages which immediately precede the panic: partition check: hda: hda1 hda2 hda3 [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 12, check=n,conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022] [me=oxff,cs=32385,#f=255,fs=65409,fl=65409,ds=33024,de=65535,data=37215, se=65635,ts=-1,ls=65535,rc=0,fc=4294967295] Transaction block size=512 UMSDOS Beta 0.6 (compatability level 0.4 fast msdos) the lines from [MSDOS.. to Transaction.. are then repeated, and then it says Kernel panic : VFS Unable to mount root fs on 03:03. Thanks again Chuck Kaufman
Re: new hard drive install
Hi Thanks again. On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, David Wright wrote: Quoting charles kaufman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): kernel panic:VFS:Unable to mount root fs on 03:03 I think that may change everything. Allowing for typos, because you copied that off the screen, did it really say FAT 12? It looks as though it's either misread the partition table (perhaps it got the geometry wrong or something) or the kernel lacks some necessary functionality to handle the new disk. What does lsmod show when you have the disk on /mnt. Is it using a module to get at that disk? Could your partitions be misnumbered in some way? Either way, I think you may need more expert help than I can provide. Yes it really says FAT 12 (twice). That has seemed strange to me too. The root device had been set as /dev/hda3; the lilo option should have changed that on the fly, as you say, but not the swap device. rdev changed them both, and they are now set to /hda2 and /hda3 in the kernel. But as I said in my last note it still fails with the same message. insmod reports nothing. There are no modules loaded. IDE support is compiled in, I believe, since it has never needed any insmod 's. (by the way it was man rdev not man lilo that said rdev isn't needed- my mistake) Chuck Kaufman
Re: your mail
Hello On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, [ Kaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]@hotmail.com wrote: Regarding kernel panic:VFS:Unable to mount root fs on 03:03 Are you sure you are not having BIOS/disk geometry problems? AFAIK with certain BIOSes the Linux root partition must be within the first 1024 cylinders (typically, first 512Mb) of the hard disk, otherwise problems appear. Since your first partition is DOS, the root partition may be outside of that zone. This is basically a BIOS problem. Consult the LargeDisk HOWTO for exhaustive detail. Thanks for the hint. Of course I don't know whether it's a BIOS disk geometry problem. In fact fdisk says the disk has 1027 cylinders. But it reports hda1 (dos) is 1 to 64, hda2 (linux) is 65 to 192, and hda3(linux swap) is 193 to 205. That's beyond 512 MB but well within 1024 cylinders. However lilo works fine and the kernel boots fine. The trouble only comes late in the startup process, after the partition check-which gives the results it should-when it insists on trying to mount / on 03:03 while lilo and rdev and fstab all (seem to) have been told that the root device is hda2 not hda3. I appreciate the help. Thanks Chuck Kaufman
new hard drive install
Hi. I am trying to switch my debian 2.0 to a new hard drive. It was on a drive partitioned with dos on hda1 and hda2 and linux native and linux swap on hda3 and hda4 resp.; I partitioned the new drive with hda1 as dos, hda2 as linux native, hda3 as linux swap. I copied (only) dos c: to hda1, and all of the linux to hda2. I altered lilo.conf to reflect these changes and ran lilo; I changed fstab. I also ran mkswap. Now with the new drive on the first ide socket I get the lilo prompt ok. If I choose dos, then dos boots and runs ok. But if I choose linux, the boot process runs part way and then hangs with a kernel panic after the partition check, with the message kernel panic:VFS:Unable to mount root fs on 03:03 The partition check gives hda: hda1 hda2 hda3 which is what I think it should give. I've checked and rechecked the lilo.conf stanza for linux and it says root=/dev/hda2 and the fstab entry is the same. Can anyone suggest what I've missed or forgotten? I'll supply more details if needed of course. Thanks. chuck
Re: make-kpkg terminated before completion
On 8 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, May I suggest the kernel_image target for make-kpkg? For most Yes you may-who better? people, the kernel-image-XXX-YYY package is the only one relevant; everything else is only there for completeness. And for personal use, you do not need the pgp signature. kernel-image target does not invoke pgp. manoj That's a very valuable hint. When I saw the .deb packages produced all but one did seem superfluous and I only installed that one. man pages seem ritually diffident. Are examples or suggestions for typical use formally forbidden or discouraged? Or did I miss such a suggestion in the make-dpkg page? Thanks again for the help (and the program). chuck
Re: make-kpkg terminated before completion
Manoj: On 9 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Well, the detailed manual is in /usr/doc/kernel-package/README.gz, where I think it does indicate that only the kernel_image target is required Point well taken. I should have found it. Thanks for being so gentle. On the other hand Let's see... man info FAQ? /usr/doc (in disguise as kernel-something, not under its real name) ... who knows where else? Anyway I'm sure you get the idea. Persistence required. In the FILES part of the man page you do mention the Problems.gz file- why not mention the the README, too? All of which takes away nothing from how nice a package it is. Thanks again. chuck
Re: make-kpkg terminated before completion
Manoj: On 9 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hmmm. Sorry to follow up my last posting so quickly, but I did notice that the man page mentions /usr/doc/kernel-package in the see also section. As I said, I have now included a reference in the files section as well. manoj MAKE-KPKG(8) Debian GNU/Linux manual MAKE-KPKG(8) SEE ALSO kernel-pkg.conf(5), dpkg-deb(1), dpkg-source(1), make(1), The Programmers manual, The GNU Make manual, and the extensive documentation on the directory /usr/doc/kernel- package Feeble excuse: The man page I have installed, dated May 2 1997, does not include the last clause of the above SEE ALSO section. It ends with 'The GNU Make manual.' (Which clause should say '... in the directory' of course.) ^ chuck
Re: make-kpkg terminated before completion
Manoj Thanks for the quick reply. The output from du is exactly what you have. But the directory is /usr/src/linux/include/net, not the one you have, if that makes any difference. The file sizes are 7924 Nov 15 13:33 rose.h 110 Jul 13 16:47 rosecall.h I did a tar zxpv linux-2.0.36.tar.gz again and these two files came out exactly the same. The program did write these files to /usr/src before it terminated: 403844 Jan 7 17:05 kernel-doc-2.0.36_1.00_all.deb 293 Jan 7 16:44 kernel-source-2.0.36_1.00.dsc 7284235 Jan 7 16:44 kernel-source-2.0.36_1.00.tar.gz 7317502 Jan 7 17:04 kernel-source-2.0.36_1.00_all.deb Jan 7 17:05 linux/ I'll try it all again to see what happens. chuck
Re: make-kpkg terminated before completion
Manoj: On 8 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Are you sure that the source tree was not somehow corrupted? I can't reproduce the problem here. I do have include/net/rosecall.h manoj I repeated the make-kpkg exactly as before, as far as I could tell. This time it completed, except for the lack of pgp, which is correct-I don't have it-and I presume not critical. The tail of the output: hown -R root.root debian/tmp-headers chmod -R og=rX debian/tmp-headers dpkg --build debian/tmp-headers .. dpkg-deb: building package `kernel-headers-2.0.36' in `../kernel-headers-2.0.36_1.00_i386.deb'. rm -rf debian/tmp-headers touch stamp-headers make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux' signfile kernel-source-2.0.36_1.00.dsc /usr/bin/dpkg-buildpackage: pgp: command not found make: *** [stamp-buildpackage] Error 127 But I don't know why it's different this time. Thanks Chuck
make-kpkg terminated before completion
This is the tail of the output from make-kpkg build-package modules executed from /usr/src/linux. That directory was the top of the tree resulting from tar zxpvf linux-2.0.36.tar.gz There is a kernel vmlinux in /usr/src/linux, dated about 7 minutes before the make-kpkg command terminated. I am using Debian Hamm, kernel 2.0.25, gcc 2.7.2, make-kpkg $Revision 1.15. Any suggestions? This is the tail of the output from make-kpkg build-package modules executed from /usr/src/linux. That directory was the top of the tree resulting from tar zxpvf linux-2.0.36.tar.gz There is a kernel vmlinux in /usr/src/linux, dated about 7 minutes before the make-kpkg command terminated. I am using Debian Hamm ,kernel 2.0.25, gcc 2.7.2. -o -name '*.bak' -o -name '#*#' -o -name '.*.orig' \ -o -name '.*.rej' -o -name '.SUMS' -o -size 0 \) -print` TAGS make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.36' (cd debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.36; \ rm -f stamp-building stamp-build stamp-configure stamp-source stamp-image stamp-headers stamp-src stamp-diff stamp-doc stamp-buildpackage stamp-libc-kheaders) (cd debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.36/include; rm -f asm; \ ln -s asm-i386 asm) if test -f debian/official -a -f debian/README.Debian ; then \ install -p-o root -g root -m 644 debian/README.Debian \ debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.36/README.Debian ; \ else \ sed -e 's/=V/2.0.36/g' -e 's/=A/i386/g' \ /usr/lib/kernel-package/README.source \ debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.36/README.Debian ; \ fi install -p-o root -g root -m 644 .config debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.36/.config.save dpkg-gencontrol -pkernel-source-2.0.36 -Pdebian/tmp-source/ no utmp entry available, using value of LOGNAME (pupdog) at /usr/lib/dpkg/controllib.pl line 16. chown -R root.root debian/tmp-source chmod -R og=rX debian/tmp-source dpkg --build debian/tmp-source .. dpkg-deb: building package `kernel-source-2.0.36' in `../kernel-source-2.0.36_1.00_all.deb'. rm -f -r debian/tmp-source touch stamp-source test -f stamp-configure || make -f /usr/lib/kernel-package/rules configure rm -rfdebian/tmp-doc install -p -d -o root -g root -m 755 debian/tmp-doc/DEBIAN install -p -d -o root -g root -m 755 debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36 install -p-o root -g root -m 644 debian/changelog \ debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36/changelog.Debian install -p-o root -g root -m 644 /usr/lib/kernel-package/LinkPolicy \ debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36/LinkPolicy.Debian install -p-o root -g root -m 644 /usr/lib/kernel-package/README.doc \ debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36/README.Debian echo This was produced by kernel-package version 4.11. \ debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36/Buildinfo tar cf - Documentation | \ (cd debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36; umask 000; tar xsf -) gzip -9fqr debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36 install -p-o root -g root -m 644 /usr/lib/kernel-package/copyright.doc \ debian/tmp-doc/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.0.36/copyright dpkg-gencontrol -pkernel-doc-2.0.36 -Pdebian/tmp-doc/ no utmp entry available, using value of LOGNAME (pupdog) at /usr/lib/dpkg/controllib.pl line 16. chown -R root.root debian/tmp-doc chmod -R og=rX debian/tmp-doc dpkg --build debian/tmp-doc .. dpkg-deb: building package `kernel-doc-2.0.36' in `../kernel-doc-2.0.36_1.00_all.deb'. rm -rf debian/tmp-doc touch stamp-doc test -f stamp-configure || make -f /usr/lib/kernel-package/rules configure make ARCH=i386 bzImage make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux' gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -m486 -malign-loops=2 -malign-jumps=2 -malign-functions=2 -DCPU=586 -DUTS_MACHINE='i386' -c -o init/version.o init/version.c set -e; for i in kernel drivers mm fs net ipc lib arch/i386/kernel arch/i386/mm arch/i386/lib; do make -C $i; done make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/kernel' make all_targets make[4]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/kernel' make[4]: Nothing to be done for `all_targets'. make[4]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/kernel' make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/kernel' make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers' set -e; for i in block char net pci; do make -C $i; done make[4]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/block' make all_targets make[5]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/block' make[5]: Nothing to be done for `all_targets'. make[5]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/block' make[4]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/block' make[4]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/char' make all_targets make[5]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/char' make[5]: Nothing to be
