[97140] in RedHat Linux List
Re: RPM for 2.0.35 kernel modules?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Stearns)
Sun Nov 1 12:27:58 1998
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 12:30:47 -0500 (EST)
From: William Stearns <wstearns@pobox.com>
To: Lance Cummings <lance@tky3.3web.ne.jp>
cc: ML-redhat <redhat-list@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <199811011235.VAA06640@pop3.tky.3web.ne.jp>
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Good morning, Lance,
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Lance Cummings wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> Right you are. Thanks! Got the job done, but since you have more
> knowledge about this in your little finger than I do in my brain, I'd like to
> pester you with a question or two. Hope I'm not intruding too much.
You're too kind. I'm always happy to help - feel free to ask
questions. If I don't have the answers, someone else on the list is
certain to.
> Haven't recompiled in a while, so I was kinda rusty, and my first attempt
> at make boot ended up with a kernel to large for the system. (I was lazy
> and didn't remove much of anything in the make xconfig step.) So for
> the heck of it, I gave your buildkernel program a try. Things went flying
> right along until we came to a point in the program where your program
> started looking for the source. Then it indicated it couldn't find it, and
The program looks in /usr/src/source/kernel for the kernel source;
if it doesn't find it there, it automatically downloads it, unless...
> stopped. (I don't have my ppp up right now because I'm switching over
> to ISDN here, so it couldn't fetch anything, and since I already had it, and
you don't have a connection to the Internet! If you just put your
linux....tag.gz in that directory, it'll use it. I'll have to go back
over the documentation and see if I can make that clearer.
If that directory doesn't appeal to you, simply try:
buildkernel 2.1.126 --BKSOURCEDIR=/the/path/to/the/kernel/source/file/
If you don't have an open line to the Internet, you'll need to
specify exactly which kernel to build, like the above, rather than using
"--NEWESTSTABLE", because buildkernel uses "finger @linux.kernel.org" to
determine what the latest revisions are.
> I'm on a metered phone here, I'm glad of that. :) So, what did I do
> wrong? (I'll admit I just plowed into your program without really knowing
> what I was doing.) :((
>
> I went ahead and rolled it manually without a problem the second time,
Great! Thanks for prodding me to make it cleaner - I really hope
that someone _can_ use it without looking at the documentation.
> though. But even cleaning up as much as I thought I could from make
> xconfig -- I still ended up with a 399k kernel. Getting close to the limit,
> aren't I? What are we gonna do when we've got so much mandatory
> stuff in the kernel that we can't keep it under 512?
Good question, with two good answers. There is another kernel
type - "bzImage" - for Big Zimage, that handles kernels larger than 512K.
simply use "make bzImage" instead of "make zImage" if the build process
complains about a too large kernel. This image type gets loaded into
memory just like zImage, but uncompresses and relocates itself, if I
remember correctly, to get around that 512K limit.
Unless you specify a build type, Buildkernel tries zImage first;
if that fails (or even if you specify zImage and that fails), it
automatically tries bzImage.
You might want to modularize your kernel as well. Because the
kernel proper can't be swapped out, everything that can be turned into a
module is memory that's available for programs or cache. An extra
megabyte of memory can make a difference, especially if you don't have
much to start with. When you're picking what to modularize and what to
leave in the kernel, make sure that anything needed to boot the machine is
left in the kernel. If you're booting off an adaptec 1542, for
example, make sure that the 1542, scsi disk, ext2 file system, etc. are
kept in the kernel.
> Thanks for your time and expertise.
Glad to confuse^h^h^h^h^h^h^h help when I can. <grin>
Cheers,
- Bill
> On 1 Nov 98, at 1:44, William Stearns wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Lance Cummings wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to upgrade from 2.0.32 (yep, been awhile) to get FAT32 support.
> > > In the 5.0 upgrades I find all the kernel ingredients except modules.
> > > I haven't upgraded in a while, but don't we still need this? Thx.
> >
> > I believe the older kernels required an additional
> > "kernel-modules" rpm. It appears the new ones package the modules in with
> > the kernel itself. Take a look at updates.redhat.com and download the new
> > kernel (try "rpm -qpl kernel-2.0.35-2.i386.rpm" to see the file listing of
> > the updated kernel package). You might want to read the errata first; at
> > one point there were special instructions for upgrading kernels that may
> > still need to be followed.
> > If you'd like to compile your own, take a look at
> > http://www.pobox.com/~wstearns/buildkernel/ .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unix _is_ user friendly. It's just very selective about who its friends
are. And sometimes even best friends have fights.
William Stearns (wstearns@pobox.com)
Mason, buildkernel, and named2hosts are at: http://www.pobox.com/~wstearns
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com http://archive.redhat.com
To unsubscribe: mail redhat-list-request@redhat.com with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
