Re: Kernel headers for 2.6.32-trunk-686?

[Stephen Powell]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:46:55 -0400 (EDT), Jen wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> My name is Jen, and I'm new to the list.  I've been playing with
> Linux on and off for about a year, but have only recently found a
> distro that meets my accessibility needs (Debian unstable).  It's
> also a great learning tool :P
> 
> I need to build some packages from source, and I need kernel
> headers to do it. I can't find the headers I need, when I try to
> install them in the conventional way I get the error 'package not
> found'.
> 
> An 'apt-cache search' finds nothing. Can someone please tell me
> where to get the kernel headers for 2.6.32-trunk-686, and how I
> install them?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Jen!

Hi, Jen.  Since you're new, here's a little something to get you
started on the right foot, in case you haven't seen this.

   http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#CodeofConduct

In addition to the offical rules, there are a couple of unofficial
rules:

   1. Don't "top post": use the usenet style of quoting
  (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting)

   2. Trim your posts (also covered in the above article)

Now, about your original question, the 2.6.32-trunk kernels have
recently been obsoleted.  You should use the 2.6.32-3 kernels (and
their headers) instead.

-- 
  .''`. Stephen Powell
 : :'  :
 `. `'`
   `-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/970630322.20473481269099059404.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com

Re: Kernel headers for 2.6.32-trunk-686?

[Ron Johnson]

On 2010-03-19 16:46, Jen wrote:

Hi,
 
My name is Jen, and I'm new to the list. I've been playing with Linux on 
and off for about a year, but have only recently found a distro that 
meets my accessibility needs (Debian unstable). It's also a great 
learning tool :P
 
I need to build some packages from source, and I need kernel headers to 
do it. I can't find the headers I need, when I try to install them in 
the conventional way I get the error 'package not found'.
 
An 'apt-cache search' finds nothing. Can someone please tell me where to 
get the kernel headers for 2.6.32-trunk-686, and how I install them?


Where does 2.6.32-trunk-686 come from?  Definitely not Unstable!

$ apt-cache search 2.6.32-trunk-686
$

You might want to install linux-image-2.6.32-4-686 (or the -bigmem 
variant dependent on your RAM size).




Thanks in advance.


apt-cache search kernel headers | grep headers | grep 32

So, I'd install linux-image-2.6.32-4-686{-bigmem} and 
linux-headers-2.6.32-4-686{-bigmem}.


--
Obsession with "preserving cultural heritage" is a racist impediment
to moral, physical and intellectual progress.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba3fb09.1000...@cox.net

Re: Kernel headers for 2.6.32-trunk-686?

[Chris Jackson]

Jen wrote:


Hi,

My name is Jen, and I'm new to the list. I've been playing with Linux on and 
off for about a year, but have only recently found a distro that meets my 
accessibility needs (Debian unstable). It's also a great learning tool :P

I need to build some packages from source, and I need kernel headers to do it. 
I can't find the headers I need, when I try to install them in the conventional 
way I get the error 'package not found'.

An 'apt-cache search' finds nothing. Can someone please tell me where to get 
the kernel headers for 2.6.32-trunk-686, and how I install them?



The linux headers are in /usr/include/linux, so:

apt-file search /usr/include/linux

(you might need to install apt-file) - and that reveals they're in
linux-libc-dev.

You might want to think about installing build-essential, which pulls in
the headers and a number of other useful things for building source
packages.

--
Chris Jackson
Shadowcat Systems Ltd.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba3f43e.60...@shadowcat.co.uk

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 19, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Steve Kleene wrote:


On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:25:58 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

I use VMware Server 56528 and am quite happy with it.
Wished I could start vmware + XP without the intervening prompts of  
the

vmserver-console.


I've been very happy with 39867 except that the moment my USB  
scanner starts
to scan, it crashes the whole virtual XP machine.  The manual  
indicates that

the behavior with USB scanners is unpredictable.



Engineering = "If you plug USB scanners in, sometimes it blows up.   
Don't ship yet."
Marketing = "Put 'Behavior with USB scanners is unpredictable.' in the  
Readme and ship that crap.  I need a new Porsche."


:-)

--
Nate Duehr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Steve Kleene]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:25:58 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> I use VMware Server 56528 and am quite happy with it.
> Wished I could start vmware + XP without the intervening prompts of the
> vmserver-console.

I've been very happy with 39867 except that the moment my USB scanner starts
to scan, it crashes the whole virtual XP machine.  The manual indicates that
the behavior with USB scanners is unpredictable.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Steve Kleene wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:00:36 -0500, I wrote:

I have vmware working again.  I uninstalled all of the old linux-headers,
reinstalled the one that matches my kernel, and then also had to install the
g++ package.  I don't know if every bit of this was necessary, but it worked.


On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:14:24 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom asked:

And did you use build 39867?


Yes, I used 39867, the same build I've always had on that machine.  I had the
headers that matched my kernel (2.6.18-5) the whole time, but after I also
added linux-kernel-headers_2.6.18-6, vmware thought it was no longer
correctly configured.  Once I added g++ (to get cc1plus), vmware made its
modules again and was happy.  (Originally it had done that even without g++.)

I may upgrade VMware Server soon, but I wanted to make sure that I could at
least get 39867 working first.



I use VMware Server 56528 and am quite happy with it.
Wished I could start vmware + XP without the intervening prompts of the 
vmserver-console.


Hugo


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Steve Kleene]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:00:36 -0500, I wrote:
> I have vmware working again.  I uninstalled all of the old linux-headers,
> reinstalled the one that matches my kernel, and then also had to install the
> g++ package.  I don't know if every bit of this was necessary, but it worked.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:14:24 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom asked:
> And did you use build 39867?

Yes, I used 39867, the same build I've always had on that machine.  I had the
headers that matched my kernel (2.6.18-5) the whole time, but after I also
added linux-kernel-headers_2.6.18-6, vmware thought it was no longer
correctly configured.  Once I added g++ (to get cc1plus), vmware made its
modules again and was happy.  (Originally it had done that even without g++.)

I may upgrade VMware Server soon, but I wanted to make sure that I could at
least get 39867 working first.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Steve Kleene wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:30:16 -0500, I wrote:

This machine is running Etch 2.6.18-5-686.  For some time, "apt upgrade" has
been holding back linux-kernel-headers_2.6.18-6.  I just installed it anyway.
I rebooted, and the only problem I see so far is that I can't get vmware
rebuilt.


I have vmware working again.  I uninstalled all of the old linux-headers,
reinstalled the one that matches my kernel, and then also had to install the
g++ package.  I don't know if every bit of this was necessary, but it worked.



And did you use build 39867?

Hugo


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Steve Kleene]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:30:16 -0500, I wrote:

> This machine is running Etch 2.6.18-5-686.  For some time, "apt upgrade" has
> been holding back linux-kernel-headers_2.6.18-6.  I just installed it anyway.
> I rebooted, and the only problem I see so far is that I can't get vmware
> rebuilt.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:15:44 +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi replied:

> I always use apt-get install linux-headers-`uname -r`.

I did this and rebooted, and vmware is still unhappy.

> Which version of vmware are you using? The recent version no longer
> needs the any-any update.

The machine in question has VMware Server 1.0.2 (2/28/07) build 39867.  I've
been meaning to install a newer version but want to make sure that I won't
have to also rebuild the virtual XP machine, which was a terror to get right.
But I'm pretty sure I can leave that in place.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers and vmware

[Raj Kiran Grandhi]

Steve Kleene wrote:

This machine is running Etch 2.6.18-5-686.  For some time, "apt upgrade" has
been holding back linux-kernel-headers_2.6.18-6.  I just installed it anyway.
I rebooted, and the only problem I see so far is that I can't get vmware
rebuilt.  But first:

1. Was it a mistake to install linux-kernel-headers_2.6.18-6?
2. If so, can I just uninstall it without causing havoc?


I always use apt-get install linux-headers-`uname -r`. This will install 
the headers for the running kernel. If you always boot into the same 
kernel, then you can safely remove the other linux-image and 
linux-headers packages.




If the answer is "leave it installed", I can get back to the vmware issue.
I have installed vmware with no problems with the any-any-update on three
previous machines but am stuck now.



Which version of vmware are you using? The recent version no longer 
needs the any-any update.



--
Raj Kiran Grandhi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers for 2.6.15.1-i686 (newbie)

[Marty]

Christopher Pharo Glæserud wrote:
Marty, 


There are a set of packages which supply the latest kernel headers
(currently 2.6.15), kernel-headers-2.6-* where "*" is your CPU
architecture.  To show them run this command:

apt-cache search kernel-headers-2.6-


Aren't these packages now called linux-headers?



I checked Packages files and it looks like this is true for
testing and unstable (I'm running sarge).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers for 2.6.15.1-i686 (newbie)

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

Adam Black wrote:


Hi all.

I'm running debian from within VMware Workstation, and VMware tools
needs the kernel headers to compile.  The only kernel headers I can
find are for 2.6.8 can anyone tell me where to go to get headers for
2.6.15, or what I can use instead of headers?
 


On machine running unstable

$apt-cache search headers 2.6.15
ieee80211softmac-headers-2.6.15-1 - IEEE 802.11 SoftMAC headers for 
Linux 2.6.15-1

linux-headers-2.6.15 - All header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15
linux-headers-2.6.15-1 - Common header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15
linux-headers-2.6.15-1-486 - Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 on 
486-class machines
linux-headers-2.6.15-1-686 - Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 on 
PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/P4 machines
linux-headers-2.6.15-1-686-smp - Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 on 
PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/P4 SMP machines
linux-headers-2.6.15-1-k7 - Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 on AMD 
K7 machines
linux-headers-2.6.15-1-k7-smp - Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 on 
AMD K7 SMP machines



choose the linux-headers package that is close to your architecture.

raju

--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers for 2.6.15.1-i686 (newbie)

[Christopher Pharo Glæserud]

Marty, 

> There are a set of packages which supply the latest kernel headers
> (currently 2.6.15), kernel-headers-2.6-* where "*" is your CPU
> architecture.  To show them run this command:
> 
> apt-cache search kernel-headers-2.6-

Aren't these packages now called linux-headers?

-- 
regards,

Christopher Pharo Glæserud


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers for 2.6.15.1-i686 (newbie)

[Marty]

Adam Black wrote:

Hi all.

I'm running debian from within VMware Workstation, and VMware tools
needs the kernel headers to compile.  The only kernel headers I can
find are for 2.6.8 can anyone tell me where to go to get headers for
2.6.15, or what I can use instead of headers?


There are a set of packages which supply the latest kernel headers
(currently 2.6.15), kernel-headers-2.6-* where "*" is your CPU
architecture.  To show them run this command:

apt-cache search kernel-headers-2.6-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Kernel Headers

[Clive Menzies]

On (06/06/05 21:53), Stephen Grant Brown wrote:
> Hi All,
> I would love to go the Debian way but I need the 2.6.11.7 kernel to connect
> to a
> usb drive which I cannot get going with a Debian precompiled kernel.
> Thanks for all your help.
> 
> PS The only program I really want to use is faubackup to back up onto the
> usb drive. I have been able to compile the 2.6.11.7 kernel with usable usb
> drivers but the faubackup program does not use symlinks on this drive.
> "make-kpkg kernel_source" does not produce a .deb package. I have produced a
> kernel binary .deb package. How do I install that?

A good reference when building custom kernels is:
http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html

To install a compiled kernel (.deb):

bash:/usr/src# dpkg -i kernel-image-2.x.x.050520_10.00.Custom_i386.deb

Regards

Clive

> - Original Message - 
> From: "Colin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Kernel Headers
> 
> 
> > Stephen Grant Brown wrote:
> > > Got tarball of Linux Kernel 2.6.11.7, and compilled and installed it.
> > >
> > > Modules do not work.
> > >
> > > Tried to re-install tarball of faubackup but it fails too.
> > >
> > > How do I correctly install the Linux Kernel tarball, the faubackup
> tarball
> > > and the correct header files? If it is RTFM, which one do I read and
> where
> > > do I find it?
> > I agree with the other poster.  If you installed the kernel The Debian
> > Way(tm), then the modules would load properly.  Install the kernel-package
> > package and follow those instructions and the kernel should install fine.
> >
> > My guess about not loading the kernel modules is that the
> module-init-tools
> > package is not installed which the kernel-package will install
> automatically.

-- 
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Kernel Headers

[Stephen Grant Brown]

Hi All,
I would love to go the Debian way but I need the 2.6.11.7 kernel to connect
to a
usb drive which I cannot get going with a Debian precompiled kernel.
Thanks for all your help.

PS The only program I really want to use is faubackup to back up onto the
usb drive. I have been able to compile the 2.6.11.7 kernel with usable usb
drivers but the faubackup program does not use symlinks on this drive.
"make-kpkg kernel_source" does not produce a .deb package. I have produced a
kernel binary .deb package. How do I install that?

Cheers
Stephen Grant Brown

- Original Message - 
From: "Colin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kernel Headers


> Stephen Grant Brown wrote:
> > Got tarball of Linux Kernel 2.6.11.7, and compilled and installed it.
> >
> > Modules do not work.
> >
> > Tried to re-install tarball of faubackup but it fails too.
> >
> > How do I correctly install the Linux Kernel tarball, the faubackup
tarball
> > and the correct header files? If it is RTFM, which one do I read and
where
> > do I find it?
> I agree with the other poster.  If you installed the kernel The Debian
> Way(tm), then the modules would load properly.  Install the kernel-package
> package and follow those instructions and the kernel should install fine.
>
> My guess about not loading the kernel modules is that the
module-init-tools
> package is not installed which the kernel-package will install
automatically.
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Kernel Headers

[Colin]

Stephen Grant Brown wrote:

Got tarball of Linux Kernel 2.6.11.7, and compilled and installed it.

Modules do not work.

Tried to re-install tarball of faubackup but it fails too.

How do I correctly install the Linux Kernel tarball, the faubackup tarball
and the correct header files? If it is RTFM, which one do I read and where
do I find it?


I agree with the other poster.  If you installed the kernel The Debian 
Way(tm), then the modules would load properly.  Install the kernel-package 
package and follow those instructions and the kernel should install fine.


My guess about not loading the kernel modules is that the module-init-tools 
package is not installed which the kernel-package will install automatically.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Kernel Headers

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:56:57 +1000
"Stephen Grant Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi All,

Hi

> How do I correctly install the Linux Kernel tarball, 
Why do you want to choose the hard way when there is a much nicer one, 
installing the kernel the debian way. Just search for that term on [enter 
prefered search engine here].

> the faubackup tarball
again, apt-get install faubackup

Excuse me if I have missed something and bother you with things you already 
know.

> Stephen Grant Brown

Elvis

-- 
Elvis Cehajic
http://www.nihil.ch

perl -e '$_="(o_\n//\\\x0AV_/_\x20\u\x6C\x69\x6E\x75\x78\n";print'


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers & compiling source

[Bob Nielsen]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:25:12PM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
> Jeff Penn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have read through the kernel-header docs, & am still not sure I 
> > understand what they are for.  I assumed that they enable source to be 
> > compiled when using a kernel-image.
> >
> > If this is correct, what is the procedure for compiling i2c-source or 
> > lm-sensors-source?.
> 
> If you're compiling your own kernel, you should read those packages'
> respective README.Debian files, which give instructions.
> (Essentially, after you 'make-kpkg kernel-image', 'make-kpkg
> modules-image'.)  If you're using one of the stock kernels, you may be
> comparatively out of luck; I'm trying to get packages into unstable
> that contain precompiled modules for the provided 2.4.20 kernels.
> *glances at ftpmaster*

'make-kpkg --append-to-version -686 modules-image' works for me.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers & compiling source

[David Z Maze]

Jeff Penn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have read through the kernel-header docs, & am still not sure I 
> understand what they are for.  I assumed that they enable source to be 
> compiled when using a kernel-image.
>
> If this is correct, what is the procedure for compiling i2c-source or 
> lm-sensors-source?.

If you're compiling your own kernel, you should read those packages'
respective README.Debian files, which give instructions.
(Essentially, after you 'make-kpkg kernel-image', 'make-kpkg
modules-image'.)  If you're using one of the stock kernels, you may be
comparatively out of luck; I'm trying to get packages into unstable
that contain precompiled modules for the provided 2.4.20 kernels.
*glances at ftpmaster*

-- 
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers & compiling source

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Jeff Penn [Sat, Jan 18 2003, 10:12:40AM]:
> I have read through the kernel-header docs, & am still not sure I 
> understand what they are for.  I assumed that they enable source to be 
> compiled when using a kernel-image.
> 
> If this is correct, what is the procedure for compiling i2c-source or 
> lm-sensors-source?.

cd /usr/src
(optionaly) ln -s kernel-headery-`uname -r` linux
tar zxvf lm-sensors.tar.gz
cd modules/lm*
debian/rules kdist_image KVERS=`uname -r` KSRC=/usr/src/kernel-headers-`uname -r`
dpkg -i /usr/src/lm-sen*`uname -r`*deb

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
void o(char c){printf("%c",c);}int main(){int a,b=0;char ciph[]= "91.92.7999 "
"yb Ugvuzm Hvmwg. Arxilhlug ivzoob hfxph !!!\n";while(a=ciph[b++]){if((a>='A')
&&(a<='Z')){a+=13;if(a>'Z')a-=26;o('Z'-(a-'A'));}else if((a>='a')&&(a<='z')){o
('z'-(a-'a'));}else if((a>='0') && (a<='9')){o('9'-(a-'0'));}else o(a);}}


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers & custom kernels

[sean finney]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:27:01PM -0500, Edward Guldemond wrote:
> You can just use the headers from the kernel-source package.  The headers
> are in /usr/src/kernel-source-X.X.XX/include

well that's only partially true though.  if any thing changes
those headers (like updating the kernel source or doing a make clean),
you lose the ability to insert and possibly even compile your
modules.   what i'd suggest, since this package is already made 
the debian way, is to do a make-kpkg kernel_headers, which produces a
package with the kernel headers inside it that you can install just
like everything else.  as a note, i always make-kpkg binary, which
makes source, headers, doc and image packages.


sean



msg17335/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: kernel-headers & custom kernels

[Edward Guldemond]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Aedificator wrote:
> If a make a custom kernel using the kernel-package, do I have to rebuild
> also the kernel-headers? If this is true, how do I do it? Or is it good
> enough to install the old ones, provid that I only recompiled my old kernel?

You can just use the headers from the kernel-source package.  The headers
are in /usr/src/kernel-source-X.X.XX/include

Happy to help,

Edward Guldemond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17

[James Michael DuPont]

If it helps anyone,
I have done the following :

1. got my CDs back :=)
2. installed the KERNEL SOURCE of 2.2.19pre17
apt-get kernel-source-2.2.19pre17
that gives me the headers as well!!!

Feeling kinda silly!

mike
--- Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On my system,
> 
> apt-cache search kernel-headers
> 
> shows (among others)
> 
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci
> 
> you probably want one of those
> 
> Bob
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:27:47AM -0700, James
> Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Sorry to bother you all again,
> > This is what I get out.
> > I have tried looking everywhere on the net and
> cannot
> > find the headers. 
> > I would recompile my kernel so I have the headers
> that
> > fit, but I am not that good. Something keeps the
> > kernel from booting, maybe it is to big.
> > 
> > >>apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > >>Reading Package Lists... Done
> > >>Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > >>0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to
> > >>remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > 
> > I have tried to find the package everywhere!
> > 
> > 
> > --- Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -i is the dkpg switch for install
> > > you want apt-get install
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > 
> > > It's in the help text
> > > 
> > > Bob
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:09:26AM -0700, James
> > > Michael DuPont wrote:
> > > > Dear Debian Kernel Hackers.
> > > > I think that I must have done something wrong
> and
> > > > please excuse the stupid question.
> > > > 
> > > > In this mail :
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200106/msg02814.html
> > > > You write apt-get -i
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunatly : 
> > > > # apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > > Returns E: Command line option 'i' [from -i]
> is
> > > not
> > > > known.
> > > > 
> > > > #apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > > Returns : 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly
> installed,
> > > 0 to
> > > > remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > > > 
> > > > I dont have the debian cd, but have
> > > > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian  
> > > potato
> > > > main non-free contrib
> > > > and
> > > > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
> > > > potato/non-US main non-free contrib
> > > > 
> > > > in my  /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am running potato 2.2r3.
> > > > My kernel says that it is 2.2.19pre17.
> > > > 
> > > > I want to compile a module, 
> > > > and need the kernel headers
> > > > 
> > > > Here are the options that I have found on the
> net 
> > > > kernel-headers-2.2.19
> > > >
> > >
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > > >
> > >
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Please advise,
> > > > and please respond to my mail directly if
> > > possible.
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > mike
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > =
> > > > James Michael DuPont
> > > > 
> > > >
> __
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with
> TurboTax
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
> Contact
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > James Michael DuPont
> > 
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > 


=
James Michael DuPont

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17

[James Michael DuPont]

Thanks bob,
I have the exact same installed.

Funny 

my uname -r returns 2.2.19pre17.

 /etc/netlock/nlvcard.o was compiled for kernel
version 2.2.19pre17-compact
while this kernel is version 2.2.19pre17.

Anyway, does anyone have this netlock VPN client for
linux running? Or has used free S/WAN to talk to a
Nortel VPN server, probablly not :(

mike


--- Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On my system,
> 
> apt-cache search kernel-headers
> 
> shows (among others)
> 
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci
> 
> you probably want one of those
> 
> Bob
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:27:47AM -0700, James
> Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Sorry to bother you all again,
> > This is what I get out.
> > I have tried looking everywhere on the net and
> cannot
> > find the headers. 
> > I would recompile my kernel so I have the headers
> that
> > fit, but I am not that good. Something keeps the
> > kernel from booting, maybe it is to big.
> > 
> > >>apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > >>Reading Package Lists... Done
> > >>Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > >>0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to
> > >>remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > 
> > I have tried to find the package everywhere!
> > 
> > 
> > --- Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -i is the dkpg switch for install
> > > you want apt-get install
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > 
> > > It's in the help text
> > > 
> > > Bob
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:09:26AM -0700, James
> > > Michael DuPont wrote:
> > > > Dear Debian Kernel Hackers.
> > > > I think that I must have done something wrong
> and
> > > > please excuse the stupid question.
> > > > 
> > > > In this mail :
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200106/msg02814.html
> > > > You write apt-get -i
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunatly : 
> > > > # apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > > Returns E: Command line option 'i' [from -i]
> is
> > > not
> > > > known.
> > > > 
> > > > #apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > > Returns : 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly
> installed,
> > > 0 to
> > > > remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > > > 
> > > > I dont have the debian cd, but have
> > > > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian  
> > > potato
> > > > main non-free contrib
> > > > and
> > > > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
> > > > potato/non-US main non-free contrib
> > > > 
> > > > in my  /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am running potato 2.2r3.
> > > > My kernel says that it is 2.2.19pre17.
> > > > 
> > > > I want to compile a module, 
> > > > and need the kernel headers
> > > > 
> > > > Here are the options that I have found on the
> net 
> > > > kernel-headers-2.2.19
> > > >
> > >
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > > >
> > >
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Please advise,
> > > > and please respond to my mail directly if
> > > possible.
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > mike
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > =
> > > > James Michael DuPont
> > > > 
> > > >
> __
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with
> TurboTax
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
> Contact
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > James Michael DuPont
> > 
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > 


=
James Michael DuPont

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17

[Bob Thibodeau]

On my system,

apt-cache search kernel-headers

shows (among others)

kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact
kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci

you probably want one of those

Bob

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:27:47AM -0700, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> Sorry to bother you all again,
> This is what I get out.
> I have tried looking everywhere on the net and cannot
> find the headers. 
> I would recompile my kernel so I have the headers that
> fit, but I am not that good. Something keeps the
> kernel from booting, maybe it is to big.
> 
> >>apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> >>Reading Package Lists... Done
> >>Building Dependency Tree... Done
> >>0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to
> >>remove and 0 not upgraded.
> 
> I have tried to find the package everywhere!
> 
> 
> --- Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -i is the dkpg switch for install
> > you want apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > 
> > It's in the help text
> > 
> > Bob
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:09:26AM -0700, James
> > Michael DuPont wrote:
> > > Dear Debian Kernel Hackers.
> > > I think that I must have done something wrong and
> > > please excuse the stupid question.
> > > 
> > > In this mail :
> > >
> >
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200106/msg02814.html
> > > You write apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > 
> > > Unfortunatly : 
> > > # apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > Returns E: Command line option 'i' [from -i] is
> > not
> > > known.
> > > 
> > > #apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > > Returns : 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed,
> > 0 to
> > > remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > > 
> > > I dont have the debian cd, but have
> > > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian  
> > potato
> > > main non-free contrib
> > > and
> > > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
> > > potato/non-US main non-free contrib
> > > 
> > > in my  /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am running potato 2.2r3.
> > > My kernel says that it is 2.2.19pre17.
> > > 
> > > I want to compile a module, 
> > > and need the kernel headers
> > > 
> > > Here are the options that I have found on the net 
> > > kernel-headers-2.2.19
> > >
> > kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > >
> > kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Please advise,
> > > and please respond to my mail directly if
> > possible.
> > > 
> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > > mike
> > > 
> > > 
> > > =
> > > James Michael DuPont
> > > 
> > > __
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 
> =
> James Michael DuPont
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17

[James Michael DuPont]

Sorry to bother you all again,
This is what I get out.
I have tried looking everywhere on the net and cannot
find the headers. 
I would recompile my kernel so I have the headers that
fit, but I am not that good. Something keeps the
kernel from booting, maybe it is to big.

>>apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
>>Reading Package Lists... Done
>>Building Dependency Tree... Done
>>0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to
>>remove and 0 not upgraded.

I have tried to find the package everywhere!


--- Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -i is the dkpg switch for install
> you want apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> 
> It's in the help text
> 
> Bob
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:09:26AM -0700, James
> Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Dear Debian Kernel Hackers.
> > I think that I must have done something wrong and
> > please excuse the stupid question.
> > 
> > In this mail :
> >
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200106/msg02814.html
> > You write apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > 
> > Unfortunatly : 
> > # apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > Returns E: Command line option 'i' [from -i] is
> not
> > known.
> > 
> > #apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> > Returns : 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed,
> 0 to
> > remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > 
> > I dont have the debian cd, but have
> > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian  
> potato
> > main non-free contrib
> > and
> > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
> > potato/non-US main non-free contrib
> > 
> > in my  /etc/apt/sources.list
> > 
> > 
> > I am running potato 2.2r3.
> > My kernel says that it is 2.2.19pre17.
> > 
> > I want to compile a module, 
> > and need the kernel headers
> > 
> > Here are the options that I have found on the net 
> > kernel-headers-2.2.19
> >
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> >
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> > 
> > 
> > Please advise,
> > and please respond to my mail directly if
> possible.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > mike
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > James Michael DuPont
> > 
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 


=
James Michael DuPont

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17

[Bob Thibodeau]

-i is the dkpg switch for install
you want apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17

It's in the help text

Bob

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 12:09:26AM -0700, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> Dear Debian Kernel Hackers.
> I think that I must have done something wrong and
> please excuse the stupid question.
> 
> In this mail :
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200106/msg02814.html
> You write apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> 
> Unfortunatly : 
> # apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> Returns E: Command line option 'i' [from -i] is not
> known.
> 
> #apt-get install kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
> Returns : 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to
> remove and 0 not upgraded.
> 
> I dont have the debian cd, but have
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian   potato
> main non-free contrib
> and
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
> potato/non-US main non-free contrib
> 
> in my  /etc/apt/sources.list
> 
> 
> I am running potato 2.2r3.
> My kernel says that it is 2.2.19pre17.
> 
> I want to compile a module, 
> and need the kernel headers
> 
> Here are the options that I have found on the net 
> kernel-headers-2.2.19
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact_2.2.19pre17-3.deb
> 
> 
> Please advise,
> and please respond to my mail directly if possible.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mike
> 
> 
> =
> James Michael DuPont
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:33:26AM -0800, ben wrote:
> i compiled and installed the 2.4.14 kernel the non-debian way and
> unstable seems to run just fine.

Of course.

> i was wondering what the actual advantages of using the kernel headers
> are?

You only need to care about kernel headers if you're writing device
drivers or other programs that need to know about kernel interfaces
directly. Don't use them in ordinary userspace programs.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers not matching kernel version?

[DvB]

Courtney Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Goodday !
> 
> How do you "install the headers from the debian package that corresponds
> to your running kernel" ?
> 
> Pardon my ignorance but I've no knowledge of such. A URL, if nothing
> else, would be appreciated.
> 

Try installing the kernel-headers-x.x.x package where x.x.x is the
version of your kernel (for you, that would probably be apt-get install
kernel-headers-2.2.19).
Don't know what you're running, exactly, but you should probably be able
to find the right package in this list (run a dpkg -l kernel-image to
get the exact package name):

http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=kernel-header&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all


HTH

Re: kernel headers not matching kernel version?

[Jeff]

Rory O'Connor, 2001-Nov-13 00:28 -0600:
> I'm trying to install VMware on debian and all goes smoothly until it 
> tries to find a 'vmmon' module for my kernel.  it's asking for the dir 
> where my C header files are, but then saying that they don't match the 
> version i'm running.  i don't see how that's possible.  here's the 
> error:
> 
> The directory of kernel headers (version 2.2.19) does not match your 
> running 
> kernel (version 2.2.19pre17).  Even if the module were to compile 
> successfully, it would not load into the running kernel.
> 
> seems like it might be a syntactical error somewhere.  any ideas?  any 
> help appreciated!
> 
> thanks,
> 
> rory

The kernel you are running is the pre-built one that comes in the
initial installation.  You need to install the kernel headers for
that kernel since you didn't compile it yourself:

One of these packages I think:
kernel-headers-2.2.19
kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci  (I'm betting this one)
kernel-headers-2.2.19-ide

If these don't work, you can get the kernel source and compile
your kernel, matching the existing kernel config found in
/boot/config-2.2.19pre17.  You'll need to run this new kernel
too.

jc



-- 
Jeff CoppockSystems Engineer
Diggin' Debian  Admin and User

Re: kernel headers not matching kernel version?

[DvB]

"Rory O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm trying to install VMware on debian and all goes smoothly until it 
> tries to find a 'vmmon' module for my kernel.  it's asking for the dir 
> where my C header files are, but then saying that they don't match the 
> version i'm running.  i don't see how that's possible.  here's the 
> error:
> 
> The directory of kernel headers (version 2.2.19) does not match your 
> running 
> kernel (version 2.2.19pre17).  Even if the module were to compile 
> successfully, it would not load into the running kernel.

Well, 2.2.19pre17 isn't necessarily the same as 2.2.19... did you
install the headers from the debian package that corresponds to your
running kernel? Most distros selectively add patches to kernels before
they compile them.

HTH

Re: kernel headers not matching kernel version?

[Paolo Falcone]

Rory O'Connor wrote:

>I'm trying to install VMware on debian and all goes smoothly until it 
>tries to find a 'vmmon' module for my kernel.  it's asking for the dir 
>where my C header files are, but then saying that they don't match the 
>version i'm running.  i don't see how that's possible.  here's the 
>error:
>
>The directory of kernel headers (version 2.2.19) does not match your 
>running 
>kernel (version 2.2.19pre17).  Even if the module were to compile 
>successfully, it would not load into the running kernel.
>
>seems like it might be a syntactical error somewhere.  any ideas?  any 
>help appreciated!

You need to download the updated modules too. Their also at the
VMware website.

Paolo Falcone

__
www.edsamail.com

Re: kernel-headers package and upgrading

[Colin Watson]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:33:20PM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> I upgraded my potato system to the 2.4.9 kernel via Adrian Bunk's
> packages, all went smoothly.
> 
> One thing that confuses me is the purpose of the "kernel-headers"
> package. I installed it, and it put some files in
> /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.4.9-686 but it didn't update
> /usr/include... do I need to manually update my header files in
> /usr/include, or am I confusing these two unrelated things entirely?

Don't touch /usr/include. If you do, chances are that something *will*
break in your build environment, and at the very least your changes
won't be preserved across upgrades.

If programs you're compiling want things in /usr/include/linux, and for
some reason you want them compiled against newer kernel headers (to be
honest, developing new kernel drivers is about the most likely case
where you'll need this), edit their Makefiles to point them at
/usr/src/kernel-headers-foo instead.

For the most part, though, just leave it be. Read
/usr/share/doc/libc6/README.Debian.gz for more information.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers for 2.219pre17

[Michael Heldebrant]

On 14 Aug 2001 22:27:20 -0700, Shawn Lamson wrote:
> Hello everyone - I am new to Debian - used to use
> Caldera OL 2.3 but I am not super proficient in Linux.
> I am trying to install ALSA and it wants to use the
> kernel headers from 2.2.19pre17... I have tried:
> a)kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-idepci
> b)kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17-compact
> c)kernel-headers-2.2.19
> and have not had any luck... at best everything makes
> and installs for alsa and as soon as i "insmod
> snd-card-" or modprobe it ... it isnt there. 

You mean the system says Can't locate module X right?

> Everything gets installed in
> /lib/modules/2.2.19... because it is getting its
> install dir path from the headers... Have you guys
> heard of this?  I cant find a similar situation on the
> alsa pages...  I find the same problem of people
> looking for the "vanilla" 2.2.19pre17 kernel headers
> but no solutions posted...
> Should I try to install the 2.2.19 kernel?  If it is
> easier all around (not just with alsa) to get support
> for kernel 2.2.19 I will try to make that (never
> played with kernel before). TIA
> Shawn Lamson

Have you tried running depmod to update the systems concept of modules
after you install the modules?  Perhaps your modules.conf file is also
needing some fine tuning.  Can you include that in your reply if the
depmod doesn't fix your problem?

--mike

Re: kernel headers for 2.2.19pre17

[D. Hoyem]

Did you try apt-get -i kernel-headers-2.2.19pre17
--- Patrick Boe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> the current stable debian distribution includes
> kernel version
> 2.2.19pre17.  a look at the source packages in
> http://packages.debian.org/stable/devel/ shows,
> however, that though the
> entire source for 2.2.19pre17 is available, a
> package containing just the
> headers is not.  There are headers for the compact
> and idepci versions,
> but not the vanilla version.  I need the headers for
> 2.2.19pre17, and I
> don't want to deal with getting the whole source
> right now.  Is there
> somewhere I can grab these headers?
> 
> thanks,
> patrick
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: kernel-headers-2.4.5-k7

[David Z Maze]

Jan Ulrich Hasecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JUH> Where is the package kernel-headers-2.4.5-k7? I cannot find it on
JUH> testing. Do I need it to build a kernel on an Athlon-System? Or can I
JUH> use kernel-headers-2.4.5?

You shouldn't need any kernel-headers package to build your own
kernel, only the kernel-source.  (And you don't really even need the
Debian kernel-source package; a tarball from, say, a kernel.org mirror 
would do fine.)  I do highly recommend using kernel-package to build
Debian packages out of kernel source, though.

-- 
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell

RE: kernel headers missing in 2.2.10 ?

[Pollywog]

On 20-Jun-99 Pollywog wrote:
> I looked for some missing header files on Debian's website and there don't
> seem to be any devel/kernel-headers-2.2.10 packages.  Any ideas as to why?
> Perhaps I should backpedal to kernel 2.2.9
> 

Nevermind, I found the package; it just did not show up on one of the search
facilities.

--
Andrew

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 04:48:46PM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 03:46:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 
> > > Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
> > > and OSS/Free is worse, but.
> > 
> > Some day in the future, the ALSA (Alternative Linux Sound Architecture) may
> > take over. It is (L)GPL'ed software. Help is appreciated.
> > 
> > http://alsa.jcu.cz
> 
> Yes, I have seen it.  The good news is that after dropkicking the CS4232
> card outta my machine and putting in the ES1688 card, I should in theory
> be able to use ALSA now if I don't mind the current state of the code.

It is 0.0.11 atm, what would you expect (but quake works ! ;)
The interesting part is that it aims to be also a drop in replacement for
OSS (so that old binaries still will work). I hope to have the time for the
C++ API. (This is another interesting part: it will have library code).
 
> I'll wait for a more end-user friendly product, same as with GGI.  Oh sure
> I can use libggi in X or svgalib, but I don't want these things, I want
> kgi and evstacks.  =>

I know what you mean. I wait for Debian GNU/Hurd ;)

Marcus

-- 
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann   http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/   PGP Key ID 36E7CD09


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Rev. Joseph Carter]

On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 03:46:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> > Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
> > and OSS/Free is worse, but.
> 
> Some day in the future, the ALSA (Alternative Linux Sound Architecture) may
> take over. It is (L)GPL'ed software. Help is appreciated.
> 
> http://alsa.jcu.cz

Yes, I have seen it.  The good news is that after dropkicking the CS4232
card outta my machine and putting in the ES1688 card, I should in theory
be able to use ALSA now if I don't mind the current state of the code.

I'll wait for a more end-user friendly product, same as with GGI.  Oh sure
I can use libggi in X or svgalib, but I don't want these things, I want
kgi and evstacks.  =>


pgpkXAytZIMys.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Tamas Papp]

>   That is precisely correct. libc6-dev depends on one exact set
>  of headers from an exact kernel version. This is documented.  The
>  dependencies are correct.
> 
>   manoj
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

jabberwock

###By lack of understanding they remained sane. (George Orwell)###


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 04:15:21AM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:

> Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
> and OSS/Free is worse, but.

Some day in the future, the ALSA (Alternative Linux Sound Architecture) may
take over. It is (L)GPL'ed software. Help is appreciated.

http://alsa.jcu.cz

Marcus

-- 
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann   http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/   PGP Key ID 36E7CD09


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

George> Ok fine, so what do I do to get a system done correctly
George> running 2.1.X?

George> It looks like I, at first, point the symlinks to the kernel
George> source provided headers. Compile glibc. Create a
George> kernel_headers package. Then use that kernel_headers until
George> both of the following conditions are met:

George> 1) I see substantial changes in the kernel include files.
George> 2) The kernal becomes relatively stable and I have stopped
George>seeing changes to the kernel includes in the patches.

George> Then I build another glibc and kernel_headers?

George> Ok, I can probably live with that. Am I correct in my
George> understanding that this is the way Debian is doing it? That
George> you use a stable version of headers over many versions and
George> only change headers used to compile user programs possibly
George> when you release new glibc versions?

You are correct. The only exception to this are device driver
 developers, but they are assumed to have enough know how to use a new
 set of kernel headers using CFLAGS or whatever.

manoj
-- 
 The Tree of Learning bears the noblest fruit, but noble fruit tastes
 bad.
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

George> On 12 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Nothing but libc6-dev is supposed to set symlinks in /usr/include;
>> certainly the kernel packages should not.
>> 

George> YES they SHOULD!  If the /usr/include symlinks are pointed to
George> /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.0.29 and you install
George> kernel-source-2.0.32 you MUST change those symlinks to point
George> to /usr/src/linux-2.0.32/include/...

Please stop spreading misinformation about subjects you know
 little about. 

George> Otherwise you are going to need a different libc6-dev package
George> for every single kernel-source and kernel-headers package so
George> the links can be adjusted properly. If you look in the linux
George> kernel source tree, this is one of the FIRST things you are
George> told to do.

That is not the case. Please read the technical information
 that folows.

manoj

__

$Id: README.headers,v 1.5 1998/03/05 22:44:57 srivasta Exp $

 This is the Debian GNU/Linux prepackaged version of the Linux kernel
 headers. Linux was written by Linus Torvalds
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others.

 This package was put together by Simon Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, from
 sources retrieved from directories under
 ftp.cs.helsinki.fi:/pub/Software/Linux/Kernel/

 This package contains the Linux kernel header files. 


 Kernel Headers and libc6-dev package
 
 

Need for kernel include files
 === == === =
   
Even though GNU libc 2.0 (a.k.a. libc6) provides an uniform
 interface to C programmers, one should realize that it needs
 different underpinnings on different architectures and operating
 systems (remember, glibc2 is multi-OS).

glibc provides all the standard files that the C standard and
 POSIX require, and those in turn call in OS and platform specific
 headers as required transparently to the user. There is an a complete
 divorce of the kernel-level interface from the user-level interface:
 the application programmer does not need to know kernel level details
 at all.

 But this has been taken by some to mean that
 /usr/include/{linux,asm} would be superfluous, which is a technical
 impossibility given that glibc2 is not an architecture and OS
 specific library.

I do not believe it is easy for glibc to present an interface
 that does not match the underlying OS, and quite possibly people just
 punted. If there is a mismatch between the user level structures and
 the kernel level structures, then libc6 library shall have to install
 translating wrappers around system calls (not such a great idea for
 high performance systems). I can foresee cases where it would not be
 possible to implement these wrappers, given a sufficiently large set
 of architectures and OS's.

In the case of Linux, the kernel header files are the
 underpinnings of the architecture independent interface.

Take a simple general ANSI C include file like . This
 in turn includes /usr/include/errnos.h, which includes
 /usr/include/linux/errno.h, which in turn includes
 /usr/include/asm/errno.h. See? A simple, standard include file like
 , and one needs kernel include files for that.

   Traditional two symlink approach
   === === ===   

Under libc5, it was standard for part of the user interface to
 libc to be exported from the kernel includes, via /usr/include/linux
 and /usr/include/asm.  Traditionally, this was done by linking those
 two directories to the appropriate directories in
 /usr/src/linux/include.  This is the method documented in the install
 instructions for the kernel sources, even today.


   Why that is bad
   ===  == ===

Kernel headers no longer make sense exporting to user space
 (in early days of Linux, that was not true). It is beginning to get
 harder to synchronize the libc and the kernel headers as in the old
 days; now linking with the latest kernel headers may subtly break new
 code since the headers linked with are different from the compiled
 library. In addition, the specter of programs breaking with new
 kernel headers was preventing needed new features from being added to
 the kernel (and damping innovative experimentation in kernel
 development) (see appendix A for details).
  
Besides, the kernel itself no longer needs /usr/include/linux/* 
  at all, so keeping the libc and kernel headers the same aren't
  needed for kernel development.

The headers were included in Debian's libc5-dev after a rash
 of very buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that)
 that proceeded to break compilations, etc

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

George> I just keep /usr/src/linux symlinked to the current source
George> directory. Example: on slowpoke /usr/src/linux is a symlink to
George> /usr/src/linux-2.1.95. In this way, patches that try to patch
George> against both /usr/src/linux and those that patch against
George> /usr/src/linux-2.1.95 will both work.

This has been known to cause programs to miscompile. You have
 been lucky.

manoj
-- 
 Where there is no vision, people perish.  Proverbs 29:18
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

Congratulations! You have just introduced a subtle bug on your
 system. It may work, and possibly never cause a problem, but
 there is a bomb ticking away, waiting to explode ;-)

There is a reason there is a versioned dependency for
 libc6-dev. The reasons are explained in a libc6-dev FAQ. I have also
 posted it in a related document.

I think I have changed my mind. I think libc6 should really
 get a package all its own, called libc6-kernel-headers. I do not know
 whether I can push it into 2.0, but I shall try.

All this silly snipping of links and upgrading to incompatible
 headers may cease then.

manoj

>>"Rev" == Rev Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Rev> [1 ] On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at
Rev> 03:42:12PM -0600, Tamas Papp wrote:

>> My problem was that I couldn't not substitute kernel-headers-2.0.32
>> with kernel-headers-2.0.33 in the sense that libc6-dev depends on
>> the former but it doesn't accept the latter instead, so my problem
>> was a dependency problem.

Rev> I deleted the 2.0.32 headers and symlinks, then just changed the
Rev> symlinks to inside /usr/src/linux/, which seemed to make a few
Rev> probrams happier when compiling.  I have to fix these symlinks
Rev> everytime I unstall new libc6-dev and naturally I have to make
Rev> sure /usr/src/linux is linked to something useful (at the moment
Rev> /usr/src/kernel/linux which is in turn linked to
Rev> /usr/src/kernel/linux-2.1.95--aren't symlinks fun?)

Rev> Why the extra kernel dir?  I use kernel-package which puts a
Rev> kernel-image .deb in the dir above the kernel directory, which is
Rev> normally /usr/src by most conventions.  This behavior is
Rev> undesirable to me, so I place all my package-related things in
Rev> subdirs, .orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz, .dsc, .deb, and the source code.

Rev> This idea came from the qmail-src package before I started
Rev> rebuilding packages for my own needs (I can build a fresh package
Rev> but it's a very slow process since I do not yet know all the
Rev> tools to make it easier) so I suppose I've kinda done it since I
Rev> started doing things this way, but.



-- 
 At West Point, the cadets had been full of bravado...But bravado was
 grounded in ignorance; true courage was possible only after one
 gained the visceral comprehension that death was the potential price
 of valor. Rick Atkinson, _The Long Grey Line_
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


George> Oh, well then just --force depends!

Use force anything and you are on your own. Using the wrong
 set of headers (which is what you shall be doing if you use force)
 has been known to hose compilation.

Please do not use force unless you understand what you are
 doing, and also understand that others may not be able to help
 recover a hosed system.

manoj
-- 
 I just thought of something funny...your mother. Cheech Marin
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Tamas" == Tamas Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Tamas> My problem was that I couldn't not substitute
Tamas> kernel-headers-2.0.32 with kernel-headers-2.0.33 in the sense
Tamas> that libc6-dev depends on the former but it doesn't accept the
Tamas> latter instead, so my problem was a dependency problem.

That is precisely correct. libc6-dev depends on one exact set
 of headers from an exact kernel version. This is documented.  The
 dependencies are correct.

manoj
-- 
 "No matter what temptation there is after an accident to be
 economical with the truth when rationalising it with hindsight,
 please remember it would be unforgivable if, by not revealing the
 facts or the complete truth, a similar incident became an unavoidable
 accident." Captain Colin Seaman, British Aerospace's head of safety
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

George> On 12 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
kernel-source-> version> may not supply the same headers as
kernel-headers-> version>, especially on non intel hardware. There
>> fore the dependency in libc6-dev is correct.
>> 

George> The problems I saw were in installing a kernel-source package
George> when you had a header package and the symlinks in /usr/include
George> are left pointing at the kernel-header directory. This is not
George> very nice when you have 2.0.29 kernel headers and then install
George> 2.0.32 kernel source.

This is precisely as intended. The libc6-dev depends on
 kernel-headers- for a reason. What difference does the
 kernel-source make anyway? You should be using the headers your libc6
 was compiled with, not just any kernel headers.

manoj

-- 
 Tactical?  TACTICAL!?!?  Hey, buddy, we went from kilotons to
 megatons several minutes ago.  We don't need no stinkin' tactical
 nukes. (By the way, do you have change for 10 million people?)
 --lwall
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Ngo Bach Long]

> >   Nothing but libc6-dev is supposed to set symlinks in
> >  /usr/include; certainly the kernel packages should not.
> >
>
> YES they SHOULD!  If the /usr/include symlinks are pointed to
> /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.0.29 and you install kernel-source-2.0.32 you
> MUST change those symlinks to point to /usr/src/linux-2.0.32/include/...

Take a look at /usr/doc/kernel-source-2.0.33/README.headers.gz

It explains the new (currently Debian-specific) policy for kernel 
include files.

Some excerpts:

> Kernel Headers and libc6-dev package
> 
>
> [...]
>
>   Traditional two symlink approach
>   === === ===   
>
> Under libc5, it was standard for part of the user interface to 
> libc to be exported from the kernel includes, via /usr/include/linux
> and /usr/include/asm.  Traditionally, this was done by linking those
> two directories to the appropriate directories in
> /usr/src/linux/include.  This is the method documented in the install
> instructions for the kernel sources, even today.
>
>   Why that is bad
>   ===  == ===
>
>  [...]
>
>Debian's libc6 method
> = ==
> [...] The variation is that we link to header files from
> a specific kernel version, namely 2.0.32, which are the headers that
> libc was compiled with. Whereas we used to link to any old kernel in
> the original libc5 symlink, the new libc6 symlink is to
> /usr/src/linux-2.0.32, which is a symbolic link that holds headers
> from a *static, well known*, *supported*, tested kernel version, and
> we let the kernel-headers package handle architecture dependencies
> (which it had to anyway).
>
> [...]
>
> This is a working technical solution to having libc
> development package contain/depend on a well known static set of
> kernel headers (insulating the vast majority of programs that are not
> closely tied to kernel version specific internal data structures),
> while allowing the kernel headers to vary from architecture to 
> architecture, and still allowing device driver authors from having
> any set of kernel headers they want on the machine through the simple
> artifice of adding a -I flag to the compilation flags.
>

So I believe the Makefile for kernel-source-2.0.33 will include the
correct kernel headers using the -I option.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Rev. Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at 04:20:00PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:

> > kernel-source- may not supply the same headers as
> >  kernel-headers-, especially on non intel hardware. There
> >  fore the dependency in libc6-dev is correct.
> > 
> > manoj
> 
> The problems I saw were in installing a kernel-source package when you had
> a header package and the symlinks in /usr/include are left pointing at the
> kernel-header directory. This is not very nice when you have 2.0.29 kernel
> headers and then install 2.0.32 kernel source.

And further, if you use for example OSS/Linux (I don't hafta anymore! 
 (hey, waiting for new OSS/Linux for devel kernels is annoying)) or
similar programs, they will not work if you have 2.0.32 kernel-headers
because the standard autoconf.h doesn't have the information OSS needs.

Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
and OSS/Free is worse, but.


pgpiL9NJzDCT4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Rev. Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at 03:42:12PM -0600, Tamas Papp wrote:

> My problem was that I couldn't not substitute kernel-headers-2.0.32 with
> kernel-headers-2.0.33 in the sense that libc6-dev depends on the former
> but it doesn't accept the latter instead, so my problem was a dependency
> problem.

I deleted the 2.0.32 headers and symlinks, then just changed the symlinks
to inside /usr/src/linux/, which seemed to make a few probrams happier
when compiling.  I have to fix these symlinks everytime I unstall new
libc6-dev and naturally I have to make sure /usr/src/linux is linked to
something useful (at the moment /usr/src/kernel/linux which is in turn
linked to /usr/src/kernel/linux-2.1.95--aren't symlinks fun?)

Why the extra kernel dir?  I use kernel-package which puts a kernel-image
.deb in the dir above the kernel directory, which is normally /usr/src by
most conventions.  This behavior is undesirable to me, so I place all my
package-related things in subdirs, .orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz, .dsc, .deb, and
the source code.

This idea came from the qmail-src package before I started rebuilding
packages for my own needs (I can build a fresh package but it's a very
slow process since I do not yet know all the tools to make it easier) so I
suppose I've kinda done it since I started doing things this way, but.


At any rate, it may not be the best way but it works.


pgpBj14k0w0Eg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

Nothing but libc6-dev is supposed to set symlinks in
 /usr/include; certainly the kernel packages should not.

manoj
-- 
 Abandoning violence to all living creatures moving or still, he who
 neither kills or causes killing - that is what I call a brahmin. 405
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

kernel-source- may not supply the same headers as
 kernel-headers-, especially on non intel hardware. There
 fore the dependency in libc6-dev is correct.

manoj
-- 
 It is either through the influence of narcotic potions, of which all
 primitive peoples and races speak in hymns, or through the powerful
 approach of spring, penetrating with joy all of nature, that those
 Dionysian stirrings arise, which in their intensification lead the
 individual to forget himself completely. . . .Not only does the bond
 between man and man come to be forged once again by the magic of the
 Dionysian rite, but alienated, hostile, or subjugated nature again
 celebrates her reconciliation with her prodigal son, man. Fred
 Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Tamas Papp]

> Oh, well then just --force depends!
It's NOT the solution, just a treatment of the sympthom. I'm asking
whether there is a real reason or is it a mistake.
> But you are better off staying well clear of 2.0.33 unless there is some
> hardware support there that you absolutely HAVE to have.  2.0.33 should
> have never been released in the state it was in.
I don't know but it runs nicely on my machine.

jabberwock

###By lack of understanding they remained sane. (George Orwell)###


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel-headers-2.0.32 vs. kernel-headers-2.0.33

[Tamas Papp]

> I have noticed some problems with some of the kernel packages not setting
> the symlinks properly in /usr/include/linux, /usr/include/asm and
> /usr/include/scsi.  I have not reported it because I have not been exactly
On my system, asm and linux are perfect and scsi is not a symlink.
> > Does anyone know why libc6-dev doesn't accept kernel-headers-2.0.33? It
> > depends on kernel-headers, but it only works with the 2.0.32 one.
My problem was that I couldn't not substitute kernel-headers-2.0.32 with
kernel-headers-2.0.33 in the sense that libc6-dev depends on the former
but it doesn't accept the latter instead, so my problem was a dependency
problem.

jabberwock

###By lack of understanding they remained sane. (George Orwell)###


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel Headers

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 11:00:50AM -0500, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> Steve Hsieh wrote:
> 
> > A1: Occasionally, changes in the kernel headers cause problems with
> > the compilation of libc and of programs that use libc.  To ensure that
> > users are not affected by these problems, we configure libc to use the
> > headers from a kernel that is known to work with libc.
> >
> 
> In that case I am just going to redo the sym-links to the real kernel source
> headersI feel I am experianced enough to deal with any problems like that
> which arise
> on the whole it should just make my life easier

The problems may be very subtle and hard to find. Note that the Debian way
is officially "blessed" by Linus Torvald himself, and that other
distributions will follow.

BTW: You should keep your own kernel tree in the /usr/local/src tree anyway
;)
 
> > By the way, the most recent OSS should take care of all of this stuff
> > automatically, I believe.  I install OSS without having to touch any of
> > the links (which point to 2.0.32 headers).  I am using kernel 2.0.33 and
> > OSS for 2.0.33 without any modifications or problems.
> 
>  It might...but it claims on the web page that it doesn't
> I got the 2.0.xx version and plan to upgrade to 2.0.33...
> I just upgraded to hamm 2 days ago but I still use 2.0.29 so
> I can hear sounds
> I am contemplating a jump to 2.1.84 ...OSS/Linux has a version fo rit...
> and I am running hamm "unstable" anyway

Good luck. As you don't use the Lite version, it may work. The lite version
in the new kernel series is somewhat broken at the moment (a fact that may
not affect you).

> Thanx fo rthe infoI never would have thought that the libc FAQ would
> talk be where to find out about linux kernel headers strangeness

Strange, as the /usr/include hierarchy is part of the library development,
not of the kernel tree. The idea is that the kernel is self-contained.
Earlier versions had no symlinks at all, but a copy of the kernel header
files of a specific version in /usr/include/{linux,asm}.

So long,
Marcus

-- 
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann   http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/   PGP Key ID 36E7CD09


--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: kernel Headers

[Bob Nielsen]

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:

> 
> > By the way, the most recent OSS should take care of all of this stuff
> > automatically, I believe.  I install OSS without having to touch any of
> > the links (which point to 2.0.32 headers).  I am using kernel 2.0.33 and
> > OSS for 2.0.33 without any modifications or problems.
> 
>  It might...but it claims on the web page that it doesn't
> I got the 2.0.xx version and plan to upgrade to 2.0.33...
> I just upgraded to hamm 2 days ago but I still use 2.0.29 so
> I can hear sounds
> I am contemplating a jump to 2.1.84 ...OSS/Linux has a version fo rit...
> and I am running hamm "unstable" anyway
> Thanx fo rthe infoI never would have thought that the libc FAQ would
> talk be where to find out about linux kernel headers strangeness

I believe that the OSS web page refers to bo, which had the headers in
libc5-dev, rather than symlinks to kernel headers.  This changed with hamm
and libc6.  You might be pretty safe with 2.0.29, but if there are
problems compiling, you'll at least know where to look.

Bob

---
Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tucson, AZ  AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen/


--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: kernel Headers

[Stephen Carpenter]

Steve Hsieh wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Can someone explain to me please this whole debian kernel headers
> > thing?
>



> > then I got curious here at work (I am installing at home) and noticed
> > that /usr/include/linux is a sym link to /usr/src/kerenel-headers-xxx
> > why i sthis so?
>
> See the /usr/doc/libc* FAQ.. Excerpt:
>



> A1: Occasionally, changes in the kernel headers cause problems with
> the compilation of libc and of programs that use libc.  To ensure that
> users are not affected by these problems, we configure libc to use the
> headers from a kernel that is known to work with libc.
>

In that case I am just going to redo the sym-links to the real kernel source
headersI feel I am experianced enough to deal with any problems like that
which arise
on the whole it should just make my life easier

> By the way, the most recent OSS should take care of all of this stuff
> automatically, I believe.  I install OSS without having to touch any of
> the links (which point to 2.0.32 headers).  I am using kernel 2.0.33 and
> OSS for 2.0.33 without any modifications or problems.

 It might...but it claims on the web page that it doesn't
I got the 2.0.xx version and plan to upgrade to 2.0.33...
I just upgraded to hamm 2 days ago but I still use 2.0.29 so
I can hear sounds
I am contemplating a jump to 2.1.84 ...OSS/Linux has a version fo rit...
and I am running hamm "unstable" anyway
Thanx fo rthe infoI never would have thought that the libc FAQ would
talk be where to find out about linux kernel headers strangeness
-Steve


--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: kernel Headers

[Steve Hsieh]

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:

> Can someone explain to me please this whole debian kernel headers
> thing?
> I use OSS/Linux (unfortunatly my sound card is of a type where I can't
> use anything else)
> and I plan to upgrade to the new version of it later today...
> they say that before installation on Debian systems...
> you have to rename /usr/include/asm and /usr/include/linux
> and make them sym inks into the kernel source tree (easy enough)
> then I got curious here at work (I am installing at home) and noticed
> that /usr/include/linux is a sym link to /usr/src/kerenel-headers-xxx
> why i sthis so?

See the /usr/doc/libc* FAQ.. Excerpt:

Q1: Why does Debian's libc point the /usr/include/linux and
/usr/include/asm symlinks to a specific kernel instead of using the
standard convention of pointing them to the currently installed
kernel?

A1: Occasionally, changes in the kernel headers cause problems with
the compilation of libc and of programs that use libc.  To ensure that
users are not affected by these problems, we configure libc to use the
headers from a kernel that is known to work with libc.


By the way, the most recent OSS should take care of all of this stuff
automatically, I believe.  I install OSS without having to touch any of
the links (which point to 2.0.32 headers).  I am using kernel 2.0.33 and
OSS for 2.0.33 without any modifications or problems.



--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Kernel headers

[Heiko Schlittermann]

Miroslav Ruda wrote:
: 
: I think old Slackware idea (/usr/include/{linux,asm,net} are links to 
: /usr/src/linux/include/{linux,asm,net}) is more better. I can simly upgrade 
: kernel_source and not yet libc5 to have same version of kernel headers.
: 
: Is any reason why not to use this schema in Debian too?

libc5 is compiled with e.g. the 2.0.0 headers.  So it's absolutly
correct to use these headers for `user' development.

For kernel development you'd probably need the most current headers as
found in /usr/src/linux/include/linux ...

Some weeks ago I'd a similar question like you, but now I think, the
current solution is the most approbiate.


Heiko
--
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp   : A1 7D F6 7B 69 73 48 35  E1 DE 21 A7 A8 9A 77 92 
finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Kernel headers

[Rob Browning]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miroslav Ruda) writes:

> Is any reason why not to use this schema in Debian too?

Read /usr/doc/libc5/FAQ.gz

--
Rob

Re: kernel headers

[Ian Jackson]

H. J. Lu writes ("Re: kernel headers"):
> > 
> > This has already been debated enough.  Debian will continue to include
> > known-working kernel headers with libc unless and until that
> > arrangement proves to be unworkable.  As I have time, I will continue
> > to encourage H.J. Lu and other Linux distributors to do the same.
> 
> I still prefer to use the kernel source installed on the
> system. It is not easy. But otherwise, you may get
> inconsistent result in system calls.

Please explain.  I assume that you're considering the situation where
the kernel version and libc version installed do not correspond, as
otherwise the two sets of header files would be identical.

So, in this case, how is it better for the header files to reflect the
kernel than the library ?  Surely having header files which do not
match the functions being called is no good ?  Surely if the kernel
interface changes, eg by having a structure rearranged, this will need
a corresponding libc change too ?

I'm confused; I hope you'll forgive me for being so bold as to ask
these questions.

Ian.

Re: kernel headers

[eckes]

Hello,

> So, in this case, how is it better for the header files to reflect the
> kernel than the library ?

The library is rather uncritical for system programming. You have a function
"ioctl()" which will never change it interface in ages, but there are all
those little parameters which tend to change from kernel version to kernel
version. This is  the real problem with having out-of-date headers on your
system.

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
  (OO)  -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
 ( .. )  [EMAIL PROTECTED],ka.sub.org}  http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
  o--o *plush*  2048/A2C51749  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +4972573817  *plush*
(OO)   If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy

Re: kernel headers

[H.J. Lu]

> 
> This has already been debated enough.  Debian will continue to include
> known-working kernel headers with libc unless and until that
> arrangement proves to be unworkable.  As I have time, I will continue
> to encourage H.J. Lu and other Linux distributors to do the same.

I still prefer to use the kernel source installed on the
system. It is not easy. But otherwise, you may get
inconsistent result in system calls.

-- 
H.J. Lu
Innovix Technologies, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: kernel headers

[David Engel]

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The headers were included in libc5-dev after a rash of very
> >  buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that) that
> >  proceeded to break compilations, etc.  Kernel versions are changed
> >  far more rapidly than libc is, and there are higer chances that
> >  people install a custom kernel than they install custom libc.
> 
> I strongly ask the ppl to think about this. This is a MAJOR difference from
> debian to the rest of the linux community. It even violates the
> recommedations from Linus himself (in the Kernels readme). Broken Headers
> due to instable Kernelinstalls are realy not a concern we should have. The
> System will just run fine, and those who install a new kernel and then
> compile a program are experienced enough to know how to get new version of
> the kernel if it wont work.
> 
> I mean every single compiler run in the linux community is done with the
> actual kernelsources, why should we change this and act like we dont belong
> to linux?
> 
> Programs which needs the linux/ and asm/ include-files have a reason to use
> them. A lot of programs compile dependingly of the kernelsource (for example
> the net-tools).
> 
> Greetings
> Bernd

This has already been debated enough.  Debian will continue to include
known-working kernel headers with libc unless and until that
arrangement proves to be unworkable.  As I have time, I will continue
to encourage H.J. Lu and other Linux distributors to do the same.

David
-- 
David EngelOptical Data Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081

Re: kernel headers

[eckes]

Hello,

>   The headers were included in libc5-dev after a rash of very
>  buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that) that
>  proceeded to break compilations, etc.  Kernel versions are changed
>  far more rapidly than libc is, and there are higer chances that
>  people install a custom kernel than they install custom libc.

I strongly ask the ppl to think about this. This is a MAJOR difference from
debian to the rest of the linux community. It even violates the
recommedations from Linus himself (in the Kernels readme). Broken Headers
due to instable Kernelinstalls are realy not a concern we should have. The
System will just run fine, and those who install a new kernel and then
compile a program are experienced enough to know how to get new version of
the kernel if it wont work.

I mean every single compiler run in the linux community is done with the
actual kernelsources, why should we change this and act like we dont belong
to linux?

Programs which needs the linux/ and asm/ include-files have a reason to use
them. A lot of programs compile dependingly of the kernelsource (for example
the net-tools).

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
  (OO)  -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
 ( .. )  [EMAIL PROTECTED],ka.sub.org}  http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
  o--o *plush*  2048/A2C51749  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +4972573817  *plush*
(OO)   If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy

Re: kernel headers

[David Engel]

> disagree on this issue. I still don't feel it is right to put kernel headers
> anywhere except with the kernel (or perhaps as their own package). If people

So just think of them as libc headers instead of kernel headers.
That's really how they are being used when referenced as
/usr/include/*.

> things to break. Debian should concentrate on providing a complete, stable
> system. 

This is why the change was made.  The new arrangement is more stable.

David
-- 
David EngelOptical Data Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081

Re: kernel headers

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Kevin" == Kevin M Bealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Kevin> But will it break anything major if I don't follow this
Kevin> guideline, and esp.  is there a temporary way to set things up
Kevin> 'the old way'?  Most of what I compile right now wants kernel
Kevin> headers so it can be compatible with the current kernel (ie
Kevin> kernel utilities and patches.)  For example I have kernel
Kevin> utilities which use #include and I keep
Kevin> catching them raiding the /usr/include directory.

 If you *sure* you need the latest kernel headers, (and that means
 that you should put a test in preinst that tests that the correct
 version is running with uname -r (if that is not necessary, you
 should rethink whether you really need the very latest), then the
 accepted method is to just use -I/usr/src/linux/include in the
 appropiate CFLAGS (provided that kernel-headers or kernel-source
 exists on the system)

Most programs, even if they include , do
 not really depend on the version of the kernel, as long as the kernel
 versions are not too far off, they will work. And the headers
 provided in libc5-dev are just that. 

manoj

-- 
 In Fame's temple there is always a niche to be found for rich dunces,
 importunate scoundrels or successful butchers of the human race.  --
 Zimmermam
Manoj Srivastava   Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

Re: kernel headers

[Scott Barker]

Manoj Srivastava said:
[reasoning for putting kernel headers in with libc packages]

Your reasoning is understandable, however, we will just have to agree to
disagree on this issue. I still don't feel it is right to put kernel headers
anywhere except with the kernel (or perhaps as their own package). If people
want to play around with development kernels, they should be prepared for
things to break. Debian should concentrate on providing a complete, stable
system. If users want to break that stability, it's up to them to watch out
for themselves.

I'm not complaining (at least, not very hard), but that's my 2cents worth.

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 5 days. If you don't  ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail ]
[ (we have a sometimes sporadic connection to the internet) ]

"The past always looks better than it was.  It's only pleasant because it
   isn't here."
   - Finley Peter Dunne (Mr. Dooley)

Re: kernel headers

[Kevin M Bealer]

On 20 May 1996, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

(clip)
>   The kernel-source package is a superset of the kernel-headers
>  package, so the headers have not been "separated" from the rest of
>  the source. 
(clip)
>   manoj
> --
> Everyone has a purpose in life.  Perhaps yours is watching television.
> -- David Letterman %%
> Manoj Srivastava   Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
> Phone: (413) 545-3918A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
> Fax:   (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

I have heard discussion on this list before about why debian does this;  I
don't want to argue why;;

But will it break anything major if I don't follow this guideline, and esp.
is there a temporary way to set things up 'the old way'?  Most of what I
compile right now wants kernel headers so it can be compatible with the
current kernel (ie kernel utilities and patches.)  For example I have kernel
utilities which use #include and I keep catching them
raiding the /usr/include directory.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the
flexibility of assembly language with the power of assembly language."

Re: kernel headers

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Scott" == Scott Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Scott> I guess I wasn't clear enough -- I was actually wondering why
Scott> kernel headers were included anywhere *except* with the kernel
Scott> source. I can see some logic in having a kernel-headers package
Scott> for those who don't want all the kernel source, but I totally
Scott> fail to see why any kernel headers are included in the libc
Scott> packages. Kernel headers are dependant upon the kernel source,
Scott> not on the C libraries. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The headers were included in libc5-dev after a rash of very
 buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that) that
 proceeded to break compilations, etc.  Kernel versions are changed
 far more rapidly than libc is, and there are higer chances that
 people install a custom kernel than they install custom libc.

Add to that the fact that few programs really need the more
 volatile elements of the header files (that is, things that really
 change from kernel version to kernel version), [before you reject
 this, consider: programs compiled on one kernel version usually work
 on other kernels].

So, it makes sense that a set of headers be provided from a
 known good kernel version, and that is sufficient for compiling most
 programs, (it also makes the compile time environments for programs
 on debian machines a well known one, easing the process of dealing
 with problem reports), the few programs that really depend on cutting
 edge kernel data structures may just use -I/usr/src/linux/include
 (provided that kernel-headers or kernel-source exists on the system).

libc5-deb is uploaded frequently enough that it never lags too
 far behind the latest released kernel.

I hope I was clear enough to answer your question.

manoj

-- "I take Him shopping with me. I say, 'OK, Jesus, help me find a
 bargain'" --Tammy Faye Bakker
Manoj Srivastava   Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

Re: kernel headers

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Scott" == Scott Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Scott> Is there a good reason that the kernel headers have been
Scott> separated from the kernel source? I think it is a very Bad
Scott> Thing to separate the headers from the kernel. The kernel is
Scott> the heart of the whole system, and I don't think it's wise to
Scott> split it up.

The kernel-source package is a superset of the kernel-headers
 package, so the headers have not been "separated" from the rest of
 the source. 

The kernel headers package are for those people who are
 not satisfied with the headers in libc5-dev, (or don't have
 libc5-dev, in which case I wonder why they want the headers at all,
 since compilation (I think) depends on having libc5-dev), and also
 don't want to pull in the rest of the kernel sources.

If this is not in the description, It should be, and I'll add
 it into the next version of the kernel-packages package (to be
 uploaded later today).

manoj
--
Everyone has a purpose in life.  Perhaps yours is watching television.
-- David Letterman %%
Manoj Srivastava   Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

Re: kernel headers

[Scott Barker]

Manoj Srivastava said:
>   The kernel headers package are for those people who are
>  not satisfied with the headers in libc5-dev, (or don't have
>  libc5-dev, in which case I wonder why they want the headers at all,
>  since compilation (I think) depends on having libc5-dev), and also
>  don't want to pull in the rest of the kernel sources.

I guess I wasn't clear enough -- I was actually wondering why kernel headers
were included anywhere *except* with the kernel source. I can see some logic
in having a kernel-headers package for those who don't want all the kernel
source, but I totally fail to see why any kernel headers are included in the
libc packages. Kernel headers are dependant upon the kernel source, not on the
C libraries. It just doesn't make sense to me.

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 5 days. If you don't  ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail ]
[ (we have a sometimes sporadic connection to the internet) ]

"Money can be lost...beauty normally fades with the years...health may fail or
   some disease can strike...friends usually vanish, perhaps die.  Only
   memories remain for as long as you live. so, live that your memories will
   make you glad rather than sad."
   - George Dubow