Re: kernel 2.1.68/69
2.1.70 is out now ... -- Michael D. Harnois, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Washburn, IA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Life is a comedy for those who think, a tragedy for those who feel. -- Anatole France -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: kernel 2.1.68/69
can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile? hamish Hamish, 2.1.67 had some changes to the installation scripts that broke make-kpkg. I've been watching the lists and I don't think anyone has noticed yet (except you and me). 2.1.68 has all kinds of new signal stuff that don't compile properly at all. 2.1.69 is said to be stable, though I haven't tried it myself. I've tried 2.1.69 with make-kpkg without (almost) any problems. I had problems to compile sound and umsdos modules but everything else works without problems (i'm not sure if i've done everything right way but i had Debian 1.3.1 and i upgraded ldso to latest version from hamm and compiled ne modutils - 2.1.55, and naturally kernel itself). New kernel runs on my home computer so there is no network in it (i didn't compiled it even as a module). __ Leszek Gerwatowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
kernel 2.1.68/69
can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile? hamish -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: kernel 2.1.68/69
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HM can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile? I've been working on it, hopefully I'll get 2.1.69 to build sometime today. :-) Thoughts so far: -- linux/drivers/sound/Makefile is broken, or the Configure script that calls it is broken. Add a line at the bottom of the file: config: kernelconfig and all will work well with make-kpkg (we hope). -- IPv6 and UMSDOS are both unhappy being built as modules. I disabled both of them; they may or may not work being built into the kernel if you need either of their services. -- make xconfig causes some error messages to be spouted out on the TTY it was started from. These mostly seem to be related to broken configuration script settings. I didn't try to fix them. Good luck... -- _ / \ The cat's been in the box for over | David Maze | 20 years. Nobody's feeding it. The | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cat is dead. | http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/ | -- Grant, on Schroedinger's Cat \_/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: kernel 2.1.68/69
Subject: kernel 2.1.68/69 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:19:41 +1100 From: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org can anyone get 2.1.68 or 2.1.69 to compile? hamish Hamish, 2.1.67 had some changes to the installation scripts that broke make-kpkg. I've been watching the lists and I don't think anyone has noticed yet (except you and me). 2.1.68 has all kinds of new signal stuff that don't compile properly at all. 2.1.69 is said to be stable, though I haven't tried it myself. I did get 2.1.67 to compile, though, by avoiding the use of make-kpkg altogether. Here is how it is done: cd /usr/src/ rm -r linux (I don't use debian kernel source packages, adjust this if you do) tar xfvz linux-2.1.69.tar.gz cd linux [read README and do what it tells you to remove and recreate symbolic links, finish with make mrproper] make menuconfig [xconfig is nice too] make dep; make clean; make zImage [or bzImage] make modules make modules_install cp /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/vmlinuz /boot/vmlinuz-2.1.69 ln -sf /boot/vmlinuz-2.1.67 [or whatever your old kernel is] /vmlinuz-old ln -sf /boot/vmlinuz-2.1.69 /vmlinuz lilo [uses your original lilo.conf] shutdown -r now There may also be some additional funkiness with System.map files; if you find you have a new one in the source tree, copy it to /boot/System.map-2.1.69, as appropriate. Note that you won't be able to uninstall this like a debian package, but it's not hard to revert to the old version by changing the symlinks (or better yet, include an entry for an older, stable kernel in lilo.conf). Hope this helps, and let's also hope that Linus keeps churning out those patches! Matt _ Matthew R. Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: kernel 2.1.68/69
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Matthew R. Briggs wrote: Hamish, 2.1.67 had some changes to the installation scripts that broke make-kpkg. I've been watching the lists and I don't think anyone has noticed yet (except you and me). 2.1.68 has all kinds of new signal stuff that don't compile properly at all. 2.1.69 is said to be stable, though I haven't tried it myself. I did get 2.1.67 to compile, though, by avoiding the use of make-kpkg altogether. Here is how it is done: Funny - I was able to get 2.1.69 to compile using make-kpkg. I use the latest hamm version of kernel-package (3.45). Some of the kernel options, like ncpfs and NFS root filesystem, wouldn't compile, but I assume those are problems with the kernel and will be fixed soon. And, despite the signal patches to the sound system, sound configuration is still broken. There is one other odd thing I noticed about 2.1.69: process accounting. It worked perfectly in 2.1.65, but now when the system comes up it says it's not available. I read somewhere that CONFIG_UNIX (Unix domain sockets) option must be turned on and it is - still no dice. Does anyone have ideas or is this another thing broken in the new kernel? --- Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
