make-kpkg error
Greeting, I'm running a 2.2.13 kernel, that I patched to 2.2.14. The patch processing went fine, no errors were detected. ( I ran zcat patch_2.2.14.gz | patch -s -p0 ) I then ran the make-kpkg --rev eggplant.2 kernel-image command, and it generated no errors building the tree, and no errors generating the modules. However, after that I received these messages: cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage debian/tmp-image/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.14 chmod 644 debian/tmp-image/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.14 test -f System.map cp System.map \ debian/tmp-image/boot/System.map-2.2.14 test -f System.map chmod 644 \ debian/tmp-image/boot/System.map-2.2.14 dpkg-gencontrol -pkernel-image-2.2.14 -Pdebian/tmp-image/ dpkg-gencontrol: error: package kernel-image-2.2.14 not in control info make: *** [stamp-image] Error 29 What does this mean, and more importantly, what do I do to correct this? TIA -Paul
Re: make-kpkg error
On 7/1/2000 Paul Biciunas wrote: I then ran the make-kpkg --rev eggplant.2 kernel-image that is supposed to be an underscore, so it should be kernel_image. -- Ethan Benson OpenPGP encrypted mail accepted. To obtain my PGP key: http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/pgp/ Key FingerPrint: 371A 7416 5D39 CF2D 9366 8AF6 0139 54F5 3EBD 0FE6 RSA Key FingerPrint: DE8B 74D0 79F1 6176 9AF5 120F 47AD 9B0A
Re: make-kpkg error
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 06:12:27PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote: On 7/1/2000 Paul Biciunas wrote: I then ran the make-kpkg --rev eggplant.2 kernel-image that is supposed to be an underscore, so it should be kernel_image. Actually, it can be either a hyphen or an underscore. The kernel-package system is set up so that one is an alias for the other. i always use the hyphenated version, for no particular reason. As for the original post, did you remember to do make-kpkg clean before you started compiling? -- finger for GPG public key. 8 Jan 2000 - Old email addresses removed from key, new added pgpmV7bq4lc4L.pgp Description: PGP signature
make-kpkg error
Can someone point me to the problem here?? (cd debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.34; \ rm -f stamp-building stamp-build stamp-configure stamp-source stamp-image stamp-headers stamp-src stamp-diff stamp-doc stamp-buildpackage stamp-libc-kheaders) (cd debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.34/include; rm -f asm; \ ln -s asm-i386 asm) if test -f debian/official -a -f debian/README.Debian ; then \ install -p-o root -g root -m 644 debian/README.Debian \ debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.34/README.Debian /bin/sh: -c: line 2: syntax error: unexpected end of file make: *** [stamp-source] Error 2 I am trying as you can see to build 2.0.34pre12. I did make-kpkg --revision gestalt.1.9 binary. It chugged for a few moments then, this. It appears to be a bug in the make-kpkg script. Won't swear to it though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make-kpkg error
Shaleh wrote: Can someone point me to the problem here?? if test -f debian/official -a -f debian/README.Debian ; then \ install -p-o root -g root -m 644 debian/README.Debian \ debian/tmp-source/usr/src/kernel-source-2.0.34/README.Debian The last line does not terminate with \, so the `if' construct is not terminated. All lines before the final `fi' need to end with \. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1 If it is possible, as much as it depends on you, live peaceably with all men.Romans 12:18 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make-kpkg error
Oliver Elphick wrote: The last line does not terminate with \, so the `if' construct is not terminated. All lines before the final `fi' need to end with \. Sure enough. I edited the rules file and all is well. Does a bug report need to be filed here or is the maintainer aware of this? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make-kpkg error....
AUUgh! Bug! Bug, I say! this should be reported. Earlier in the build process, the architecture is set so: architecture:=$(shell dpkg --print-architecture) What does dpkg --print-architecture show? The following: dpkg: unexpected output from `gcc --print-libgcc-file-name': `/usr/lib/libgcc.a' dpkg: compiler libgcc filename not understood: no gcc-lib component what's in /etc/kernel-pkg.conf? The following: # This file is used by kernel-package (2.0) to provide a means of the site # admin to over-ride settings in the distributed debian.rules. Typically # thus is used to set maintainer information, as well as the priority # field. However, one may hack a full makefile in here (you should # really know what you are doing here if you do that, though) # Please change the maintainer information, as well as the debian version # below, (and maybe the priority as well, espescially if you are uploading # an official package) # The maintainer information. maintainer := Martin Waller email := [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Priority of this version (or urgency, as dchanges would call it) priority := Low # This is the debian revision number (defaulted to 1.0 in debian.rules) # You may leave it commented out if you use the wrapper script, or # if you create just one kernel-image package per linux kernel revision # debian := 1.0 what version of kernel-package is being used? Dunno...the one that came with Debian 1.3.1... Something is strange on this machine, since if it were a general problem, I would have been deafened by the howls of outrage that would naturally ensue. manoj The response from dpkg --print-architecture (the gcc stuff) reminds me that i had a problem with gcc. Trying to run gcc came up with: gcc installation problem: cannot find 'cc1':no such file or directory (g++ similarly gave gcc installation problem: cannot find 'cc1plus':no such file or directory) This was from a Debian 1.2 installation - removing gcc and re-installing made no difference, so i fixed it with a kludge: ln -s /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.7.2.1/ccd1 /usr/bin/cc1 I have since upgraded to Debian 1.3.1, which i thought replaced the gcc from 1.2... Perhaps not - then the problem is with my gcc installation it appears. Where can i get info on setting it up properly manually? De- and then re-installing the gcc *.deb stuff makes no difference. Ta, Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
GCC problem (Was: make-kpkg error....)
Hi, Hmmm. Well, do you have the correct version of cpp installed? If things look good, try purging and re-installing both cpp and gcc; paying attention to installation errors. (I do not understand what went wrong here). manoj -- One must be either the anvil or the hammer. -- Number 2 Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
make-kpkg error....
Hi, Whilst recompiling my (2.0.30) kernel using make-kpkg as suggested in the debian FAQ, the following thing happened towards what i guess would've been the end: cp arch//boot/bzImage \ debian/temp_image/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.30 cp: arch//boot/bzImage: No such file or directory make: *** [stamp-image] Error 1 ? What's happened? Is it really tring to copy arch//boot/bzImage? Why not just arch/boot/bzImage? Is this an error in the Makefile script somewhere, or am i doing something wrong? Help please! Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: make-kpkg error....
Hi, Well, there is no difference between arch//boot/bzImage and arch/boot/bzImage, really, when it come to cp. I suspect that the image did not build, for some reason. a) what do you see when you do ls -als arch/boot/bzImage? b) What version of kernel-package are you using? c) Are there any other errors? (try running make-kpkg under script so everything gets logged). manoj -- A smoker is always attracted to the non-smoking section. -- Raj K. Dhawan Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: make-kpkg error....
On 23 Sep 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Well, there is no difference between arch//boot/bzImage and arch/boot/bzImage, really, when it come to cp. I suspect that the image did not build, for some reason. Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that, though the filename syntax might be legal, the architecture is missing; i.e. .../alpha/..., .../i386/... etc. I have no reasons to offer, however; sorry. -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: make-kpkg error....
Hi, David == David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David On 23 Sep 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Well, there is no difference between arch//boot/bzImage and arch/boot/bzImage, really, when it come to cp. I suspect that the image did not build, for some reason. David Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that, though the filename David syntax might be legal, the architecture is missing; David i.e. .../alpha/..., .../i386/... etc. AUUgh! Bug! Bug, I say! this should be reported. Earlier in the build process, the architecture is set so: architecture:=$(shell dpkg --print-architecture) What does dpkg --print-architecture show? what's in /etc/kernel-pkg.conf? what version of kernel-package is being used? Something is strange on this machine, since if it were a general problem, I would have been deafened by the howls of outrage that would naturally ensue. manoj -- If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average. Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
make-kpkg error
Hallo, yesterday I successfully compiled kernel 2.0.29 at home. Today I tried the same at work and it went wrong :( Both systems are equally configured regarding the relevant packages (dpkg 1.4.0.8, dpkg-deb 1.4.0.8, kernel-package 3.19, don't know about others). I did: make mrproper make config make-kpkg --zimage --revision work-1.0 \ kernel_image kernel_source kernel_headers zImage and modules are compiled correctly. Then after the modules were mv'ed to tmp-image I get: --- cp arch/i386/boot/zImage \ debian/tmp-image/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.29 cp vmlinux debian/tmp-image/boot/vmlinux-2.0.29 cp System.map debian/tmp-image/boot/System.map-2.0.29 chmod 644 debian/tmp-image/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.29 \ debian/tmp-image/boot/vmlinux-2.0.29 \ debian/tmp-image/boot/System.map-2.0.29 dpkg-gencontrol -pkernel-image-2.0.29 -Pdebian/tmp-image/ chown -R root.root debian/tmp-image dpkg --build debian/tmp-image .. dpkg-deb - error: (upstream) version (`work') doesn't contain any digits dpkg-deb: 1 errors in control file make: *** [stamp-image] Error 2 --- I think I did what I'm told in /usr/doc/kernel-package/README. Mysteriously 'make-kpkg --zimage --revision work.1 buildpackage' runs ok. Don't know if the information is sufficient to say what could be wrong. Any idea? Thanks in advance, Ulf
Re: make-kpkg error
Hi, I am afraid that you have run into restrictions about the version numbering scheme imposed by Debian Policy. Your revision number is taken to have an upstream version (work) and a debian-revision, which is the rest of the revision field. The upstream version is not allowed to have only non-digits. remove the hyphen (replacing it by a period `.' and all will be well. try make-kpkg --revision work.1.2.3 kernel-image (no hyphens), and things should work. I'll try to document this in the readme file. manoj dpkg programmers' manual - chapter 5 Version numbering Every package has a version number, in its Version control file field. dpkg imposes an ordering on version numbers, so that it can tell whether packages are being up- or downgraded and so that dselect can tell whether a package it finds available is newer than the one installed on the system. The version number format has the most significant parts (as far as comparison is concerned) at the beginning. The version number format is: [epoch:]upstream-version[-debian-revision]. The three components here are: epoch This is a single unsigned integer, which should usually be small. It may be omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the upstream-version may not contain any colons. It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering schemes, to be left behind. dpkg will not usually display the epoch unless it is essential (non-zero, or if the upstream-version contains a colon); dselect does not display epochs at all in the main part of the package selection display. upstream-version This is the main part of the version. It is usually version number of the original (`upstream') package of which the .deb file has been made, if this is applicable. Usually this will be in the same format as that specified by the upstream author(s); however, it may need to be reformatted to fit into dpkg's format and comparison scheme. The comparison behaviour of dpkg with respect to the upstream-version is described below. The upstream-version portion of the version number is mandatory. The upstream-version may contain only alphanumerics and the characters + . - : (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon) and should start with a digit. If there is no debian-revision then hyphens are not allowed; if there is no epoch then colons are not allowed. debian-revision This part of the version represents the version of the modifications that were made to the package to make it a Debian binary package. It is in the same format as the upstream-version and dpkg compares it in the same way. It is optional; if it isn't present then the upstream-version may not contain a hyphen. This format represents the case where a piece of software was written specifically to be turned into a Debian binary package, and so there is only one `debianization' of it and therefore no revision indication is required. It is conventional to restart the debian-revision at 1 each time the upstream-version is increased. dpkg will break the upstream-version and debian-revision apart at the last hyphen in the string. The absence of a debian-revision compares earlier than the presence of one (but note that the debian-revision is the least significant part of the version number). The debian-revision may contain only alphanumerics and the characters + and . (plus and full stop). -- A man forgives only when he is in the wrong. Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/
