I did finally get the 4.17.11 kernel to compile so that my large drives
are visible now, but I had to use a 'shotgun' approach in including as
many SCSI/SATA/etc variables as possible.
I do intend on comparing the non-functioning config for 4.17.11 against
both the functioning config, as
On Wed 01 Aug 2018 at 23:37:33 (-0600), Taren wrote:
> I'm running Stretch, with kernel 4.9.0.7, and am trying to compile a
> new kernel (preferably 4.17.11) into which I can boot.
> The kernel builds successfully, but whenever I try booting into the
> new kernel, I end up in emergency mode, with
Correction:
The kernel version I'm using (which sees my 2.7T drives) is 4.9.0-7-amd,
not 4.9.0.7.
I can provide the .config file for 4.17.11, if needed.
On 08/01/2018 11:37 PM, Taren wrote:
I'm running Stretch, with kernel 4.9.0.7, and am trying to compile a
new kernel (preferably 4.17.11)
I'm running Stretch, with kernel 4.9.0.7, and am trying to compile a new
kernel (preferably 4.17.11) into which I can boot.
The kernel builds successfully, but whenever I try booting into the new
kernel, I end up in emergency mode, with the error
Unit dev-disk-by\x2duuid-.device has
actually i never compile or patch any kernel before for some reasons and
learning i am installing kernel 3.16 stable with patch.
now the question is when i visit kernel.org website i see 3.16 kernel and
patch and inc.patch.
i can understand what is patch it could be a fix to some bugs but what is
On 23/10/2014 10:20, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
actually i never compile or patch any kernel before for some reasons and
learning i am installing kernel 3.16 stable with patch.
now the question is when i visit kernel.org website i see 3.16 kernel and
patch and inc.patch.
i can understand what
Thanks for your guidence,
can you please share that i do not see kernel architecture on the website.
does that kernel file contain both x86 and amd64?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:51 PM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com
tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 23/10/2014 10:20, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 23/10/14 at 03:37pm, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
Thanks for your guidence,
can you please share that i do not see kernel architecture on the website.
does that kernel file contain both x86 and amd64?
...of course it does.
But, do you know what are you doing?
--
« Nunc est bibendum,
Actually the problem is i am trying to install KVM guest windows 7 64 bit.
during the installation everything went well. but when guest start for the
first time my KVM guest shows booting from harddirve... and struck.
my /var/log/libvirt/qemu/(myguestfile) show this
KVM: entry
On 23/10/2014 14:22, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
Actually the problem is i am trying to install KVM guest windows 7 64 bit.
during the installation everything went well. but when guest start for the
first time my KVM guest shows booting from harddirve... and struck.
my
Muhammad Yousuf Khan sir...@gmail.com writes:
So my KVM host is not a production server so i thought it is a best time to
play with the kernal patching because i am working on linux for years but
never
perform such task i always rely on default/stable debian repository but this
is
a first
Thanks Dervin, for the encouragement and it is really nice to know that
there is a community exist for newbies as well.i will definitly start
working on your given information it is very helpful.
just sharing to all after lots of efforts and updates nothing has achieved
so far.
started a new
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 03:20:36 -0400 (EDT), Muhammad Yousuf wrote:
actually i never compile or patch any kernel before for some reasons and
learning i am installing kernel 3.16 stable with patch.
now the question is when i visit kernel.org website i see 3.16 kernel and
patch and inc.patch.
Please don't top post on this mailing list.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 04:22:30PM +0500, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
Actually the problem is i am trying to install KVM guest windows 7 64 bit.
during the installation everything went well. but when guest start for the
first time my KVM guest shows
computer, I've asked:
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 23:57 -0300, Beco wrote:
How long a considered fast kernel compilation would last? I'd like
to have a clue. And in what kind of computer (processor / RAM /
anything else relevant)?
And I got some good answers that is better to join this thread
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:57:43PM -0300, Beco wrote:
On 26 September 2013 22:22, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
(I've compiled a kernel on a netbook; you'd better have a few hours to
spare...)
Questions for people who compile kernel and their machines:
You are better off
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:41:10 -
Cam Hutchison c...@xdna.net wrote:
David Witbrodt dawit...@sbcglobal.net writes:
(My goal was to
produce a kernel that boots without an initrd; most people will not
share that goal.)
I would have thought that most people would share that goal, since
Cam Hutchison:
(My goal was to
produce a kernel that boots without an initrd; most people will not
share that goal.)
I would have thought that most people would share that goal, since
building an initrd is useful for only two reasons I can think of:
I regularly built custom kernels for a
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:22:33 +, Camaleón wrote:
Okay, let's get the numbers.
I followed Sven and Stephen's advice so I:
- Used make localmodconfig to generate the .config file
- Appended CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2 to
a kernel and this is
my 4 kernel compilation in one month... but now I'm making these tests
just for fun because all these compilations were aimed to debug the
staging wifi drivers but the latest kernel (3.1-rc7, which I tried
yesterday) neither worked.
One of the biggest problems I see people
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote:
I will continue to use and recommend kernel-package. But I'm not going
to argue with those who wish to use make deb-pkg.
It's all a question of habit. If I need to have a package, I use
make-dpkg on Debian distribs and
been added to the wifi driver has been detected and I was given a
workaround but I still need to be able to test another things and that
involves adding debug trace for the stating drivers, which involves a
kernel compilation.
Do an lspci and write down all the hardware you have
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Cam Hutchison c...@xdna.net wrote:
David Witbrodt dawit...@sbcglobal.net writes:
(My goal was to
produce a kernel that boots without an initrd; most people will not
share that goal.)
I would have thought that most people would share that goal, since
building
* Stephen Powell [110924 14:13 -0400]:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:18:47 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
What do you mean by kernel-package? Debian's vanilla kernel?
kernel-package is the name of a Debian package, as in
aptitude install kernel-package
Isn't [1] the proper way to build
On 9/24/2011 6:55 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:15:51 -0400 (EDT), Stan Hoeppner wrote:
5 hours? Did you say 5 hours?
I have a 10 year old dual Mendocino 550 machine with only 384MB of PC100
that takes about 30 minutes to compile my custom kernels using make -j2.
I'd
On 9/25/2011 2:42 AM, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
* Stephen Powell [110924 14:13 -0400]:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:18:47 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
What do you mean by kernel-package? Debian's vanilla kernel?
kernel-package is the name of a Debian package, as in
aptitude install
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:56:35 -0400 (EDT), Tom H wrote:
CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=$(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN)
although getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN on an atom's probably 1; but
you never know...
You can also pass
get the
packages that I ask for. And since your goal is to reduce kernel
compilation time, I would think that you would not want extra packages
produced that you don't need. That takes additional time.
I also found very easy to compile a new kernel from whatever source by
using the mentioned
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:42:24 -0400 (EDT), Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
Isn't [1] the proper way to build Debian kernels?
[1] http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html
That depends on your definition of proper. The kernel handbook,
not surprisingly, is maintained by the
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I already have a set of tools installed (along with fakeroot,
that kernel-package) because I'm following Debian Installation Guide
instructions:
http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch08s06.html
There's also
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:53:59 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
Stephen Powell wrote:
If you decide to try kernel-package, make sure that you apply the patch
file listed in the web page. It won't work properly with a version 3
kernel unless you do.
Hum... you mean the one for EDID? I've compiled
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:30:36 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:53:59 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
Stephen Powell wrote:
If you decide to try kernel-package, make sure that you apply the
patch file listed in the web page. It won't work properly with a
version 3 kernel
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:25:19 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I already have a set of tools installed (along with
fakeroot, that kernel-package) because I'm following Debian
Installation Guide instructions:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:15:51 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 9/24/2011 9:22 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
I don't need nothing special, just to be able to boot the system, test
the staging drivers and then remove/compile a new kernel again so
wasting the less time in the process would be great
On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 08:21:17 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
[Snipped: Some advantages of using kernel-package]
But, to each his own. Whatever floats your boat, man.
Indeed, but the deck is stacked against kernel-package when it is
associated with 'deprecated' in the minds of users. It may not
From: Camaleón noela...@gmail.com
Sent: Sun, September 25, 2011 10:30:30 AM
Subject: Re: Reducing kernel compilation time
I'd guess you're including the kitchen sink. Don't build the hundreds
of driver modules your machines won't ever use. That is the key to
reducing build time
On 9/25/2011 9:30 AM, Camaleón wrote:
Fair enough, but I wonder what to include in the recipe. If I put too
much salt or leave the oven for many hours at the maximun temperature
I'll get a pastiche nobody will be able to eat...
Have you used make-menuconfig? Simply go through all the
On 9/25/2011 10:16 AM, David Witbrodt wrote:
If that option had existed when I
was learning about this, it would have saved me many, many hours!
But then you wouldn't have learned as much. Easier is not always
better, even though it often seems so.
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:16:53 -0700, David Witbrodt wrote:
From: Camaleón noela...@gmail.com
Sent: Sun, September 25, 2011 10:30:30 AM Subject: Re: Reducing kernel
compilation time
I'd guess you're including the kitchen sink. Don't build the
hundreds of driver modules your machines
.
And be patient with yourself. Nearly everyone who embarks on the roll
your own journey trips a few times along the way, and has a steep
learning curve in the beginning.
Over the years, I've never had the need to compile a kernel and this is
my 4 kernel compilation in one month... but now I'm making
From: Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
Sent: Sun, September 25, 2011 11:27:13 AM
Subject: Re: Reducing kernel compilation time
If that option had existed when I
was learning about this, it would have saved me many, many
hours!
But then you wouldn't have learned as much
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:22:33 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Any trick?
Yes, I got many useful tricks, a big thanks to all.
Okay, let's get the numbers.
I followed Sven and Stephen's advice so I:
- Used make localmodconfig to generate the .config file
- Appended CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2 to
a kernel and this is
my 4 kernel compilation in one month... but now I'm making these tests
just for fun because all these compilations were aimed to debug the
staging wifi drivers but the latest kernel (3.1-rc7, which I tried
yesterday) neither worked.
One of the biggest problems I see people having
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:27:09 -0400 (EDT), Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
Indeed, but the deck is stacked against kernel-package when it is
associated with 'deprecated' in the minds of users. It may not suit the
Kernel Team for their use but I've happily and successfully compiled
kernels
David Witbrodt dawit...@sbcglobal.net writes:
(My goal was to
produce a kernel that boots without an initrd; most people will not
share that goal.)
I would have thought that most people would share that goal, since
building an initrd is useful for only two reasons I can think of:
1) You are
Hello,
I had to compile the latest upstream kernel sources to make some
debugging with my wifi drivers (from staging) and discovered that
compilation took ~5 hours.
That's much for testing purposes.
Compilation takes place in a netbook governed by Intel's Atom N455 with 2
GiB of RAM and I
I would build only the relevant kernel *module*, I want to play with
(or imported from linux-next):
http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPackage
HTH
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I had to compile the latest upstream kernel
time in the process would be great :-)
Any trick?
I would build only the relevant kernel *module*, I want to play with (or
imported from linux-next):
http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPackage
I'll give it a whirl, but reducing kernel compilation time is still
something
On 2011-09-24 16:22 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
I had to compile the latest upstream kernel sources to make some
debugging with my wifi drivers (from staging) and discovered that
compilation took ~5 hours.
That's much for testing purposes.
Compilation takes place in a netbook governed by
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
I had to compile the latest upstream kernel sources to make some
debugging with my wifi drivers (from staging) and discovered that
compilation took ~5 hours.
That's much for testing purposes.
Compilation takes place in a
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:18:08 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-09-24 16:22 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
I don't need nothing special, just to be able to boot the system, test
the staging drivers and then remove/compile a new kernel again so
wasting the less time in the process would be
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:01:07 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
(...)
I don't need nothing special, just to be able to boot the system, test
the staging drivers and then remove/compile a new kernel again so
wasting the less time in the
On 2011-09-24 18:04 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:18:08 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
Plug in any hardware that you intend to use with your netbook and then
run make localmodconfig. This works from Linux 2.6.32 onwards¹.
I'll test that, it sounds very good :-)
(I guess that
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
I had to compile the latest upstream kernel sources to make some
debugging with my wifi drivers (from staging) and discovered that
compilation took ~5 hours.
package. With kernel-package, I only get
the packages that I ask for. And since your goal is to reduce kernel
compilation time, I would think that you would not want extra packages
produced that you don't need. That takes additional time.
If you decide to try kernel-package, make sure that you
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:56:35 -0400 (EDT), Tom H wrote:
CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=$(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN)
although getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN on an atom's probably 1; but
you never know...
You can also pass INSTALL_MOD_STRIP=1 to make-kpkg so that the make
modules_install step strips out
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 20:20 +,
debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org wrote:
CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2
I didn't read the thread, just one mail.
For my 2.1 GHz dual-core Athlon CONCURRENCY_LEVEL does minimal reduce
compiling time. I suspect that consequently reducing unneeded stuff
would be
On 9/24/2011 9:22 AM, Camaleón wrote:
Hello,
I had to compile the latest upstream kernel sources to make some
debugging with my wifi drivers (from staging) and discovered that
compilation took ~5 hours.
That's much for testing purposes.
Compilation takes place in a netbook governed by Intel's
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 22:44 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 20:20 +,
debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org wrote:
CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2
I didn't read the thread, just one mail.
For my 2.1 GHz dual-core Athlon CONCURRENCY_LEVEL does minimal reduce
compiling time.
On 9/24/2011 11:01 AM, Stephen Powell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
Intel's Atom N455
I'm not familiar with the capabilities of your hardware, but if you have
multiple CPUs (cores)
The Atom 455 is a single core 64/32 bit CPU with HyperThreading,
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:15:51 -0400 (EDT), Stan Hoeppner wrote:
5 hours? Did you say 5 hours?
I have a 10 year old dual Mendocino 550 machine with only 384MB of PC100
that takes about 30 minutes to compile my custom kernels using make -j2.
I'd guess you're including the kitchen sink.
Hi... I am testing self made kernels on my desktop, using the debian way
found in http://www.howtoforge.com... My question is about the name
given to the deb package generated... How can I change the string
-10.00.Custom_i386 in the package name? I am running debian
testing/lenny. Thanks a
Hello Miguel,
if you are using make-kpkg ,
you may try the option `--revision'
hth,
Jerome
Miguel J. Jiménez wrote:
Hi... I am testing self made kernels on my desktop, using the debian way
found in http://www.howtoforge.com... My question is about the name
given to the deb package
Hi,
You can use the option --revision in make-kpkg
(make-kpkg --initrd --revision 1.0 kernel_image)
or you can change the default in file /etc/kernel-pkg.conf to 1.0
so everytime you give make-kpkg the revision is always want you want.
Bye
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Monsieur Bidon, mercredi 1 août 2007, 11:36:24 CEST
Salut tout le monde,
’lut,
J'adore trop la distrib Debian pour son système de paquet. Et j'essaye
d'optimiser pour que les mise à jours se résume à un comb o apt-get update /
apt-get dist-upgrade.
Mon soucis, vient du driver de ma
Salut tout le monde,
J'adore trop la distrib Debian pour son système de paquet. Et j'essaye
d'optimiser pour que les mise à jours se résume à un comb o apt-get update /
apt-get dist-upgrade.
Mon soucis, vient du driver de ma carte wifi elle est basé sur le chip
rt2500, cette carte est très bien
Hi all,
I was always downloading from www.kernel.org, using always the same
.config file, and everything was fine. Up to the point I found out that
the newer kernels which were supposed to have new options
(CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) are not having them. I tried to compile the
configure the kernel
Hello,
After being stuck for 3 days trying to recompile my kernel, I'm seeking
help. Guess the answer should be quite simple.
I've managed after some work to install debian on my new Dell machine
(ICH7 controller + SATA): I debootstrapped the system from Knoppix and
then installed the
Hello Roman,
Just been through the exercise of building my first Debian kernel
myself. If you have never built a Debian kernel before, the
'Debian way' of doing it seems quite different to that on most other
Linux's.
The method I used to reproduce my stock stable kernel-source-2.6.8
after a new
Hello
Roman Kouzmenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've managed after some work to install debian on my new Dell machine
(ICH7 controller + SATA): I debootstrapped the system from Knoppix and
then installed the latest kernel 2.6.15-1-686-smp from the backports
with initramfs-tools. I need to
Hi all
For some reason I seem to be getting the following message when type make
menuconfig
scripts/kconfig/mconf.c:91: error: static declaration of 'current_menu' follows
non-static declaration
scripts/kconfig/lkc.h:63: error: previous declaration of 'current_menu' was here
make[1]: ***
Hi!
For some reason I seem to be getting the following message when type make
menuconfig
scripts/kconfig/mconf.c:91: error: static declaration of 'current_menu'
follows non-static declaration scripts/kconfig/lkc.h:63: error: previous
declaration of 'current_menu' was here make[1]: ***
Andi Drebes wrote:
Hi!
For some reason I seem to be getting the following message when type make
menuconfig
scripts/kconfig/mconf.c:91: error: static declaration of 'current_menu'
follows non-static declaration scripts/kconfig/lkc.h:63: error: previous
declaration of 'current_menu' was here
Hi Brent!
Thanks for replying, no its from the debian repositry.
ok. But which version did you obtain?
ukgate:/usr/src/linux# dpkg -l | grep -i gcc
ii gcc 4.0.2-2The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-2.95 2.95.4-22 The GNU C
.1.0
kernel_image
for more details google with debian kernel compilation
Regards,
Abhisawa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Doofus told:
tar -xjf kernel-version.tar.bz
cd linux-version
make-kpkg debian
dch -i
Type your changes to the changelog like:
New vanilla upstream
cp /boot/config-whatever .config
make menuconfig to custom your kernel
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Raffaele D'Elia told:
Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Doofus told:
tar -xjf kernel-version.tar.bz
cd linux-version
make-kpkg debian
dch -i
Type your changes to the changelog like:
New vanilla
Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Raffaele D'Elia told:
Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Doofus told:
tar -xjf kernel-version.tar.bz
cd linux-version
make-kpkg debian
dch -i
Type your changes to the changelog
The debian reference manual says there are two ways, the debian standard
method:
http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-kernel.en.html#s-kernel-debian
and the classic method:
http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-kernel.en.html#s-kernel-classic
where the first uses a
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 the mental interface of
Doofus told:
[...]
Is there any reason not to combine the two methods, ie download the latest
2.4
from kernel.org (which I want), but use make-kpkg clean and make-kpkg
kernel_image (which I like)?
The way I do it:
As root:
$EDITOR
Doofus wrote:
Is there any reason not to combine the two methods, ie download the
latest 2.4 from kernel.org (which I want), but use make-kpkg clean
and make-kpkg kernel_image (which I like)?
I do not have an answer to your question. But may I ask why you are
trying to compile
1) latest
Doofus writes:
Is there any reason not to combine the two methods, ie download the
latest 2.4 from kernel.org (which I want), but use make-kpkg clean and
make-kpkg kernel_image (which I like)?
No. Kernel-package works fine with kernel.org kernels.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Doofus wrote:
Is there any reason not to combine the two methods, ie download the
latest 2.4 from kernel.org (which I want), but use make-kpkg clean and
make-kpkg kernel_image (which I like)?
Combine the methods? That's how the maintainers make the deb packages more
or less.
--
To
On Monday 18 July 2005 07:43 pm, Doofus wrote:
The debian reference manual says there are two ways, the debian standard
method:
http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-kernel.en.html#s-kernel-d
ebian
and the classic method:
Hey ho,
From my very first steps with Debian, I was taught to compile kernel
sources myself, rather than the proverbial Debian way, so that's what
I've been doing ever since.
After compilation, an sh ./NVIDIA_binary_driver_package.run has never
failed on me, until recently. For some reason,
On May 23, 2005 at 10:03:13PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Alberto Bert wrote:
I just tryed to compile the 2.6.22 kernel with make-kpkg and the default
config file.
Is there any indication whatsoever that the default configuration file is
appropriate
On 23 May 2005, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
Hello Alberto,
I run 2.6.11-ck8 and 2.6.11.2 with no issues. Both compiled with
make-kpkg.
Could it be a wrong .config file ?
Regards,
Ionut
Is this the vanilla kernel source or the Debian kernel-source package?
Anthony
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 24, 2005 at 09:02:59AM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote:
On 23 May 2005, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
Hello Alberto,
I run 2.6.11-ck8 and 2.6.11.2 with no issues. Both compiled with
make-kpkg.
Could it be a wrong .config file ?
Regards,
Ionut
Is this the vanilla kernel
I usually run vanilla sources. For the 2.6.11.-ck8 I wanted to give the
much praised -ck patch a try, but for now I haven't seen any difference
yet :-)
Ionut
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:02:59AM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote:
On 23 May 2005, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
Hello Alberto,
I run
Got it!
I update the system and it upgraded initrd-tools, plus I updated the
kernel-2.6.11 also. Then I copyed the new default config from /boot and
I'm now running it.
So, I suppose initrd-tools was buggy...
thanks anyway,
bye
Alberto
On May 24, 2005 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Alberto Bert wrote:
Hi,
I just tryed to compile the 2.6.22 kernel with make-kpkg and the default
config file.
I doesn't boot giving endless loop with and error apparently related
to proc and init. I cannot be more precise cause I don't know where to find back
what it was on the console...
Is that a known problem
Sorry, I forgot to say that I'm running sid
Alberto
On May 23, 2005 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Alberto Bert wrote:
Hi,
I just tryed to compile the 2.6.22 kernel with make-kpkg and the default
config file.
I doesn't boot giving endless loop with and error apparently related
to proc and init. I
Hello Alberto,
I run 2.6.11-ck8 and 2.6.11.2 with no issues. Both compiled with
make-kpkg.
Could it be a wrong .config file ?
Regards,
Ionut
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:11:00PM +0200, Alberto Bert wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to say that I'm running sid
Alberto
On May 23, 2005 at 07:06:31PM
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Alberto Bert wrote:
I just tryed to compile the 2.6.22 kernel with make-kpkg and the default
config file.
Is there any indication whatsoever that the default configuration file is
appropriate for your hardware?
If you don't know what you're doing,
Hello,
while trying to compile a module (shfs) for my kernel (compiled from source,
version 2.6.5) I got a segmentation fault error. I deleted my kernel-source
folder, while keeping a copy of my configuration, and tried to recompile it.
I got the same error again, here it is :
Yes I have, with the latest provided by debian : 2.6.9
The problem seems to be unrelated to the version of the kernel because even
module compilation fails, as I stated before.
Thanks for helping
Hi
Have you tried to compile another 2.6.x kernel with your 2.6.5/.config
? Moreover you will have
I do have all the necessary packages. The thing is that I configured my
kernel a couple of months ago (when 2.6.5 was the latest stable kernel
version). It worked fine. Yesterday I found shfs module, and while trying to
compile it I got this error message.
It isn't a normal compilation error,
I removed some of my gcc's, keeping the gcc-x.x-base files though, they
seemed necessary. I tried again, same error. The funny thing, even 'make
clean' fails :
...
/bin/sh: line 1: 15413 Segmentation fault gcc -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude
-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs
And it seems all my gcc-3.x packages don't work... gcc-2.95 is fine, but too
old...
_
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
I've managed to reinstall gcc-3.3 (with aptitude), after having cleared my
apt cache (apt-get clean) so as to be sure that a correct version would be
downloaded...
Same problem, segmentation fault when I do 'gcc -v'
_
Express
1 - 100 of 368 matches
Mail list logo
