[SOLVED] Re: How to create a kernel package
Hi all, thanks for pointing me to the wiki and the hint with the script. Yes, in the meantime things have changed, I was not aware of the bindep-pkg command. I looked into the manual, but this specific command I did not find, but lots of very usefull other descriptions. So, this little question of mine could be easily answered. Thank you for the quick answers! Best regards Hans
Re: How to create a kernel package
Hans wrote:
I want to create a kernel package, which I can install with dpkg. There was a
command doing it instead of "make && make install", and I could not find it
any more. Last time I did it is a long time ago. Does someone know?
I also don't remember the old command, but this has been obsoleted by
the kernel itself, that has now a bindeb-pkg target.
So you'd do "make oldconfig bindeb-pkg" and you should end up with some
deb packages in the parent directory. If the build fails, you need to
install some -devel packages.
Then install the linux-image-*.deb package using dpkg -i.
Second question: My kernel sources are pointing with a symlink to /usr/src/
linux-5.10/, but by default there was a symlink to the headers, which is /usr/
src/linux-headers-5.10-*/.
No need to set up these links yourself, let the kernel development
package do that for you, if/when you install it.
For my understanding: When do I need this? I suppose, only when I want to
build modules, right?
Yes
Anything else to take notice of, i.e. adding a versionstring, so that I get
not in conflict with the debian repo packages?
You can set the CONFIG_LOCALVERSION in the kernel config file to add
some string to the kernel version, so it is unlikely to clash with the
upstream kernel version. It's useful to leave the Debian kernel
installed, in case your compiled kernel fails to boot.
FWIW, here is my script to build a kernel:
#!/bin/sh
set -e
prog_name=`basename $0`
concurrency=16
suffix=".`whoami`"
usage() {
echo "$prog_name [OPTIONS]"
}
help() {
usage
echo
echo "OPTIONS"
echo " -h show this help page"
echo " -j number of parallel make threads (default: $concurrency)"
echo " -s add suffix (default: $suffix)"
}
while getopts hj:s: opt; do
case "$opt" in
h) help
exit 0;;
j) concurrency="$OPTARG";;
s) suffix="$OPTARG";;
\?) # unknown flag
usage >&2
exit 1;;
esac
done
shift `expr $OPTIND - 1`
if [ -n "$date" ]; then
echo >&2 "Extra argument"
exit 1
fi
sed -i -e 's/^#*\.*/CONFIG_LOCALVERSION="'"$suffix"'"/'
.config
make -j "$concurrency" clean oldconfig savedefconfig bindeb-pkg
-
Thomas
Re: How to create a kernel package
On 10/7/22 11:00, Hans wrote: Hi folks, some easy questions. I want to create a kernel package, which I can install with dpkg. There was a command doing it instead of "make && make install", and I could not find it any more. Last time I did it is a long time ago. Does someone know? Second question: My kernel sources are pointing with a symlink to /usr/src/ linux-5.10/, but by default there was a symlink to the headers, which is /usr/ src/linux-headers-5.10-*/. For my understanding: When do I need this? I suppose, only when I want to build modules, right? Anything else to take notice of, i.e. adding a versionstring, so that I get not in conflict with the debian repo packages? Thanks for any hints. Did you try steps from this Wiki page? https://wiki.debian.org/BuildADebianKernelPackage Kind regards Georgi
How to create a kernel package
Hi folks, some easy questions. I want to create a kernel package, which I can install with dpkg. There was a command doing it instead of "make && make install", and I could not find it any more. Last time I did it is a long time ago. Does someone know? Second question: My kernel sources are pointing with a symlink to /usr/src/ linux-5.10/, but by default there was a symlink to the headers, which is /usr/ src/linux-headers-5.10-*/. For my understanding: When do I need this? I suppose, only when I want to build modules, right? Anything else to take notice of, i.e. adding a versionstring, so that I get not in conflict with the debian repo packages? Thanks for any hints. Best regards Hans
Re: Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
On Ter, 20 Jun 2017, Karsten Wemheuer wrote: thanks for Your answer. If I understand You correctly, the package would not be available in "stretch". How should I build a custom kernel in stretch without this package? If you really want to use the package instead of the upstream make target, you can download the package in unstable and install it. Care must be taken when mixing distributions, but looking at the dependencies (https://packages.debian.org/sid/kernel-package) one can see that there are no specific versions required, and all the dependencies are for fairly common packages that one probably already has installed. This should make installation easy and shouldn't cause any problems. -- Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br
Re: Re: Re: Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
Hi Darac, thanks again. I wasn't aware of the new target "make deb-pkg". Best regards, Karsten
Re: Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
On 2017-06-20 11:26 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:05:01PM +0200, Karsten Wemheuer wrote: >>Hi Darac, >> >>> It's a bug. The package tracker page for kernel-package >>> <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/kernel-package> states that >>> the package was removed from strech because the new version >>> introduced a new, serious-level bug: #848066. The bug was not fixed >>> in time for the release, so the package was dropped (it's still in >>> unstable, though, so it may return for buster). >> >>thanks for Your answer. If I understand You correctly, the package >>would not be available in "stretch". How should I build a custom kernel >>in stretch without this package? > > The Debian Hanbook > <https://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-official> > appears to recommend using upstream's tools. That is, the kernel now > comes with a "make deb-pkg" target. In current kernels "make deb-pkg" also creates a source package which is very time-consuming. Unless one wants to distribute the built packages (and thus has to think about GPL compliance), it's better to use "make bindeb-pkg" which only creates binary packages. Cheers, Sven
Re: Re: Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:05:01PM +0200, Karsten Wemheuer wrote: Hi Darac, It's a bug. The package tracker page for kernel-package <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/kernel-package> states that the package was removed from strech because the new version introduced a new, serious-level bug: #848066. The bug was not fixed in time for the release, so the package was dropped (it's still in unstable, though, so it may return for buster). thanks for Your answer. If I understand You correctly, the package would not be available in "stretch". How should I build a custom kernel in stretch without this package? The Debian Hanbook <https://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-official> appears to recommend using upstream's tools. That is, the kernel now comes with a "make deb-pkg" target. -- For more information, please reread. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
Hi Darac, > It's a bug. The package tracker page for kernel-package > <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/kernel-package> states that > the package was removed from strech because the new version > introduced a new, serious-level bug: #848066. The bug was not fixed > in time for the release, so the package was dropped (it's still in > unstable, though, so it may return for buster). thanks for Your answer. If I understand You correctly, the package would not be available in "stretch". How should I build a custom kernel in stretch without this package? Thanks, Karsten
Re: Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:26:26AM +0200, Karsten Wemheuer wrote:
Hi *,
I just want to do some tests with kernels in "stretch" and therefore
was looking for packet "kernel-package".
But
apt install kernel-package
leads to
E: Package 'kernel-package' has no installation candidate
Is this a bug or is kernel building in stretch different to jessie?
It's a bug. The package tracker page for kernel-package
<https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/kernel-package> states that the package
was removed from strech because the new version introduced a new,
serious-level bug: #848066. The bug was not fixed in time for the
release, so the package was dropped (it's still in unstable, though, so
it may return for buster).
Thanks,
Karsten
--
For more information, please reread.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Missing "kernel-package" in stretch
Hi *,
I just want to do some tests with kernels in "stretch" and therefore
was looking for packet "kernel-package".
But
apt install kernel-package
leads to
E: Package 'kernel-package' has no installation candidate
Is this a bug or is kernel building in stretch different to jessie?
Thanks,
Karsten
For those of you having trouble with kernel-package and Linux V3 ...
For those of you having trouble with kernel-package and Linux Version 3, I have an unofficial patch that may solve your problems, particularly if you have CONFIG_LGUEST set in the kernel config file or you are trying to build a headers package. The patch is available here: http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/kernel-package/linuxv3.diff (Sorry, I realize that it is customary to include patches in-line in an e-mail, but my MUA (Mail User Agent) has the nasty habit of inserting line-feed characters in long lines, expanding tabs to blanks, etc., which make it useless for posting in-line patches.) This is an unofficial patch: it does not come from the upstream author or the Debian package maintainer. Use it at your own risk. To apply, cd /usr/share/kernel-package ... (download the patch to the current directory) patch -p1 linuxv3.diff This seems to work with make version 3.81-8.1. There are reported problems with make version 3.82 and kernel-package. I haven't tried that yet. -- .''`. 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/370191655.1161562.1312890777626.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
how do patches get to Debian kernel package?
Hi Debian users, Upgrading from old stable (Lenny) to stable (Squeeze) broke X on my machine. The problem centers around the video chip on the Asus M2A-VM motherboard, and, perhaps the attached Samsung monitor attached. I am not certain, but I believe this discussion at lkml.org pertains: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/21/244 where a kernel patch for the problem is proposed. My question to this list is a request for a sketch of the process how the patch discussed at lkml.org would get into Debian's kernel image package. Is there a resource where I can see whether the patch was indeed accepted into the Linux kernel source? What roughly, is process to get from there to a compiled Debian package? I'm sure it's all out there, but a few words from a knowledgeable participant would be greatly appreciated. Mark -- 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/cam-_jtm2ator426gy0xmcquntxbyxgzr27b5+bbzzjc6fx3...@mail.gmail.com
kernel-package: 2.6.37 kernelrelease target no longer works
I've built a new 2.6.37 kernel with kernel-package where I use an --append-to-version option to add a hostname a build number. Due to a change in the kernel Makefile, make kernelrelease no longer gets the kernel release from include/config/kernel.release , but instead uses scripts/setlocalversion . This causes problems because the extra stuff added to EXTRAVERSION by --append-to-version is no longer there when you run make kernelrelease, so I get a bare kernel version instead of my version. The Linux Makefile change was made in commit 7b8ea53d. I don't know whether this should be considered a bug in kernel-package or the kernel. The kernel is no longer preserving the value of EXTRAVERSION passed on the make command line when make is subsequently invoked, whereas it previously did. But then, the kernel people don't seem to care much about stable interfaces, so perhaps kernel-package should adapt somehow. What are people's thoughts? For now, I'm going to revert 7b8ea53d in my tree so I can get VirtualBox installing again (it compares $(uname -r) to $(make kernelrelease)), but this should probably be fixed somewhere. -- 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/f0a.4d34d5fb.9...@getafix.xdna.net
RE: make-kpkg (from kernel-package) does not build xen patched kernel
Going to try a make-file patch when I get some time. The patch was offered from a user on the Xen-user mailing list. [1] http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2010-09/msg00396.html -M Subject: make-kpkg (from kernel-package) does not build xen patched kernel Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:16:31 -0400 Hello list, I cannot get make-kpkg to build a Xenlinux type kernel into a Debian kernel binary on my Debian Squeeze x86_64 system. I am using GNU/Linux kernel sources tree (2.6.34.4) with Xen patches for this custom kernel. I am trying to use the make-kpkg command to build a working linux-image-2.6.34.4-xen-amd64 package for my system. The sources are vanilla (available from kernel.org) with patches available from: http://gentoo-xen-kernel.googlecode.com/files/xen-patches-2.6.34-4.tar.bz2 These sources compile a Xenlinux kernel and not a pv_ops one so the bug report for XEN and the kernel-package is not applicable (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574957) It seems that when the kernel_image target is used, a System.map-2.6.34.4-xen can not be generated, and therefore a FATAL error causes the make-kpkg process to fail! A System.map-2.6.34.4-xen can be generated when the kernel is built and packaged into a Debian binary with make deb-pkg. Can anyone else reproduce this problem? uname -a Linux BUBBLE 2.6.34.4-r61-xen #1 SMP Tue Sep 14 10:39:11 EDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux apt-cache policy kernel-package kernel-package: Installed: 12.036 Candidate: 12.036 Version table: *** 12.036 0 500 http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/debian/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -M -- 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/bay148-w26797a860546be0560a52ef...@phx.gbl
make-kpkg (from kernel-package) does not build xen patched kernel
Hello list, I cannot get make-kpkg to build a Xenlinux type kernel into a Debian kernel binary on my Debian Squeeze x86_64 system. I am using GNU/Linux kernel sources tree (2.6.34.4) with Xen patches for this custom kernel. I am trying to use the make-kpkg command to build a working linux-image-2.6.34.4-xen-amd64 package for my system. The sources are vanilla (available from kernel.org) with patches available from: http://gentoo-xen-kernel.googlecode.com/files/xen-patches-2.6.34-4.tar.bz2 These sources compile a Xenlinux kernel and not a pv_ops one so the bug report for XEN and the kernel-package is not applicable (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574957) It seems that when the kernel_image target is used, a System.map-2.6.34.4-xen can not be generated, and therefore a FATAL error causes the make-kpkg process to fail! A System.map-2.6.34.4-xen can be generated when the kernel is built and packaged into a Debian binary with make deb-pkg. Can anyone else reproduce this problem? uname -a Linux BUBBLE 2.6.34.4-r61-xen #1 SMP Tue Sep 14 10:39:11 EDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux apt-cache policy kernel-package kernel-package: Installed: 12.036 Candidate: 12.036 Version table: *** 12.036 0 500 http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/debian/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -M
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 05:01:03 +0100, Jen wrote: I am blind, so selecting the kernel from the grub prompt is not possible. I want to use the new kernel (not trunk) as my default. OK, now I understand your problem. It is unfortunate that the trunk version slipped into the normal repository and that update-grub is not prepared to deal with it automatically now that you have a newer regular kernel installed. The speech and Braille modules that I use are loaded after the grub prompt has appeared, so I need to change what kernel is used after the system is booted. The procedure to achieve that depends on your version of grub (grub-legacy or grub-pc). For grub-legacy you need to edit the file /boot/grub/menu.lst. There should be a line default 0, which tells grub which entry to boot by default; counting starts from zero. You have to replace the 0 by a 1 or a 2, depending on whether you have an auto-generated recovery mode entry for the trunk kernel before the newer regular kernel. You can find the current order of kernels at the end of the menu.lst file, in the section starting below the line ## ## End Default Options ##. If you have difficulties finding out which number your desired entry has then you can run the following command as root to obtain an ordered listing of all menu entries: grep ^title /boot/grub/menu.lst I suggest making a backup of menu.lst before you edit it and running update-grub after you changed the default. Once you manage to boot into the new kernel, you can remove the trunk one and reset the default to 0. (The entries of the trunk kernel will be removed automatically from the grub menu when this kernel is uninstalled.) The procedure for grub-pc follows the same principle, but in that case you have to change the line GRUB_DEFAULT=0 in the file /etc/default/grub, or you can use the grub-set-default X command as root, where X is the number of your desired new default. Again, run update-grub afterwards to make sure the change is committed. Here is the command for obtaining an ordered listing of the menu entries of grub-pc: grep -o '^menuentry.*' /boot/grub/grub.cfg -- Regards,| Florian | -- 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/20100401211600.gc31...@bavaria.univ-lyon1.fr
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
I am blind, so selecting the kernel from the grub prompt is not possible. I want to use the new kernel (not trunk) as my default. The speech and Braille modules that I use are loaded after the grub prompt has appeared, so I need to change what kernel is used after the system is booted. Thanks for any help or suggestions, Jen. -- From: Wolodja Wentland wentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:50 AM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package? __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4986 (20100330) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- 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/col112-ds10d6a4c6174d5be1af8203f2...@phx.gbl
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
I've installed linux-image-2.6.32-4-i686, but I can't boot in to the new kernel. I have also installed the latest version of grub. What do I now have to do to get my machine to boot from the new kernel? I've been told I should perge the package linux-image2.6.32-trunk-686, but I don't have to. Cheers, Jen. -- From: Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:45 AM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package? On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:51:25 -0400 (EDT), Jen wrote: Hello, I have the latest version of the Kernel package installed, and have grub2. Can you please tell me what I need to modify in order to get my machine to boot from the 2.6.32-4-i686? Thanks, Jen. I'm not sure what you're saying, and I'm not sure what you're asking. When you say I have the latest version of the Kernel package installed, are you saying that you have the latest stock kernel image installed, which would be linux-image-2.6.32-4-686, I presume, or do you mean that you have a package called kernel-package installed, which is used to compile custom kernels? I'm guessing the former. Second, when you say please tell me what I need to modify in order to get my machine to boot from the 2.6.32-4-i686? Do you mean that you can't get a custom kernel that you compiled yourself (with kernel-package) to boot? Or do you simply mean that you want the latest stock kernel to boot by default? I assume the latter. The simplest way is to purge the silly trunk kernel. For example, aptitude purge linux-image-2.6.32-trunk-686 The latest stock kernel image should then boot by default. However, before you do this, you must first boot something else by doing a manual override boot. In other words, you don't want to be running the 2.6.32-trunk kernel while you are trying to purge the 2.6.32-trunk kernel! You don't *ever* want to try to purge a running kernel! Manually select the 2.6.32-4-686 kernel from the grub boot menu to boot it. Make sure that's what you're running by issuing the uname -r command. Then, once you're sure that you're not running the 2.6.32-trunk kernel, issue the aptitude purge command above. Then shutdown and reboot. The 2.6.32-4 kernel should then boot by default from then on. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `- -- 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/1230236975.21504541269485137816.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4972 (20100324) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4972 (20100324) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- 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/col112-ds10f225b94438fd60a0ffe0f2...@phx.gbl
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Jen fluffy_bunny_1...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: I've installed linux-image-2.6.32-4-i686, but I can't boot in to the new kernel. I have also installed the latest version of grub. What do I now have to do to get my machine to boot from the new kernel? I've been told I should perge the package linux-image2.6.32-trunk-686, but I don't have to. Cheers, Jen. snip Hey, Try: $ sudo update-grub Regards, Angus -- 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/996de46c1003250238h5044786eh47b72ac70df85...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:26 -, Jen wrote: I've installed linux-image-2.6.32-4-i686, but I can't boot in to the new kernel. I have also installed the latest version of grub. I think I don't quite understand you. Stephen and I have pointed out the reasons *why* the -trunk- kernel is still the kernel that is booted by default in grub. I am sure that you can boot the newly installed kernel, by selecting it *manually* at the grub prompt. This would enable you to remove the now obsolete -trunk- package, which will also result in -4- becoming the kernel booted by default, because it is the only kernel installed, or at least the one with the highest version numbers that adheres to the naming conventions. This procedure has been detailed by Stephen and I don't see anything I can add to that. What do I now have to do to get my machine to boot from the new kernel? Select it manually at grub's boot prompt. I've been told I should perge the package linux-image2.6.32-trunk-686, but I don't have to. You don't have to, but why would you want to? If you want to keep both packages and their kernels, but have your system to boot the -4- kernel by default, you have to adjust your grub configuration. The bug report [1] I pointed out contains a patch against /usr/lib/grub/grub-mkconfig_lib that honours -trunk- and sorts it beneath -4- ... Run update-grub after patching that file and everything should be fine, given that the patch is OK. I haven't tested it and you will be on your own if you do this. Make sure that you create a backup of the file before you patch it. I still don't quite understand why you insist on keeping the -trunk- package though. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568160 -- .''`. Wolodja Wentlandwentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
Hello, I have the latest version of the Kernel package installed, and have grub2. Can you please tell me what I need to modify in order to get my machine to boot from the 2.6.32-4-i686? Thanks, Jen. -- From: Wolodja Wentland wentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:37 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package? On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:33 -, Jen wrote: Hello, I can't read your message. I'm not sure if its because of the screen reading software I'm using, so could you send it in plain text, in case it's my accessibility software? Well, no idea why you couldn't read it. The only thing i can think of is that i've signed the mail with gpg. This one is unsigned. --- snip --- Do you still have the -trunk- image installed? If yes take a look at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568160 The easiest way to deal with this problem would be to remove the -trunk- package. If you want to keep it, you would have to configure grub accordingly. Which version of grub to you use? --- snip -- .''`. Wolodja Wentlandwentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC -- 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/20100322213726.ge25...@kinakuta.local __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4966 (20100322) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4972 (20100324) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- 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/col112-ds21accca008e2a5a5179130f2...@phx.gbl
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:51:25 -0400 (EDT), Jen wrote: Hello, I have the latest version of the Kernel package installed, and have grub2. Can you please tell me what I need to modify in order to get my machine to boot from the 2.6.32-4-i686? Thanks, Jen. I'm not sure what you're saying, and I'm not sure what you're asking. When you say I have the latest version of the Kernel package installed, are you saying that you have the latest stock kernel image installed, which would be linux-image-2.6.32-4-686, I presume, or do you mean that you have a package called kernel-package installed, which is used to compile custom kernels? I'm guessing the former. Second, when you say please tell me what I need to modify in order to get my machine to boot from the 2.6.32-4-i686? Do you mean that you can't get a custom kernel that you compiled yourself (with kernel-package) to boot? Or do you simply mean that you want the latest stock kernel to boot by default? I assume the latter. The simplest way is to purge the silly trunk kernel. For example, aptitude purge linux-image-2.6.32-trunk-686 The latest stock kernel image should then boot by default. However, before you do this, you must first boot something else by doing a manual override boot. In other words, you don't want to be running the 2.6.32-trunk kernel while you are trying to purge the 2.6.32-trunk kernel! You don't *ever* want to try to purge a running kernel! Manually select the 2.6.32-4-686 kernel from the grub boot menu to boot it. Make sure that's what you're running by issuing the uname -r command. Then, once you're sure that you're not running the 2.6.32-trunk kernel, issue the aptitude purge command above. Then shutdown and reboot. The 2.6.32-4 kernel should then boot by default from then on. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `- -- 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/1230236975.21504541269485137816.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
Hello, I can't read your message. I'm not sure if its because of the screen reading software I'm using, so could you send it in plain text, in case it's my accessibility software? Cheers, Jen! -- From: Wolodja Wentland wentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:02 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package? __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4966 (20100322) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- 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/col112-ds20add30f45fba35cab210ef2...@phx.gbl
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Jen fluffy_bunny_1...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Hello, I can't read your message. I'm not sure if its because of the screen reading software I'm using, so could you send it in plain text, in case it's my accessibility software? Cheers, Jen! snip Hey, Its a problem with the -trunk kernel if you have it installed, see here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568160 The easiest way to go about fixing it is to purge the -trunk kernel. (This is basically what Wolodja said :) ) Regards, Angus -- 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/996de46c1003221439u4768deb7hc9c510460f63e...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:33 -, Jen wrote: Hello, I can't read your message. I'm not sure if its because of the screen reading software I'm using, so could you send it in plain text, in case it's my accessibility software? Well, no idea why you couldn't read it. The only thing i can think of is that i've signed the mail with gpg. This one is unsigned. --- snip --- Do you still have the -trunk- image installed? If yes take a look at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568160 The easiest way to deal with this problem would be to remove the -trunk- package. If you want to keep it, you would have to configure grub accordingly. Which version of grub to you use? --- snip -- .''`. Wolodja Wentlandwentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC -- 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/20100322213726.ge25...@kinakuta.local
Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
Hello, I have installed the Kernel package Linux-image-2.6.32-4, but can't automatically boot from it. I thought I could just change the default number in /boot/grub/menu.lst, but the new kernel package is not listed in this file. Can I manually ad its details, and assign it a number? If not then what's the process for making it appear in the list of kernels in /boot/grub/menu.lst? Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks, Jen. __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4962 (20100321) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: Booting from newly installed Kernel package?
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 13:12 -, Jen wrote: I have installed the Kernel package Linux-image-2.6.32-4, but can't automatically boot from it. I thought I could just change the default number in /boot/grub/menu.lst, but the new kernel package is not listed in this file. Do you still have the -trunk- image installed? If yes take a look at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568160 The easiest way to deal with this problem would be to remove the -trunk- package. If you want to keep it, you would have to configure grub accordingly. Which version of grub to you use? -- .''`. Wolodja Wentlandwentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[PATCH]: lenny - kernel-package 11.015 for use with kernel_2.6.33
As this one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=561569 does not really work on debian lenny (although suggested on some websites) and i had to work myself through to get it working, here's a patch for the kernel-package 11.015, that's currently in debian lenny, for the use with a vanilla 2.6.33 kernel. Attached, but pasted here also to be viewable without downloading the attachment. --- kernel-package/ruleset/targets/common.mk2008-11-24 18:01:32.0 +0100 +++ /usr/share/kernel-package/ruleset/targets/common.mk 2010-03-06 00:29:54.0 +0100 @@ -333,8 +333,14 @@ @echo this was built on a machine with the kernel: debian/buildinfo uname -a debian/buildinfo echo using the compiler: debian/buildinfo - grep LINUX_COMPILER include/linux/compile.h | \ - sed -e 's/.*LINUX_COMPILER //' -e 's/$$//' debian/buildinfo + if [ -f include/generated/compile.h ]; then \ + grep LINUX_COMPILER include/generated/compile.h | \ + sed -e 's/.*LINUX_COMPILER //' -e 's/$$//' debian/buildinfo; \ + else \ + grep LINUX_COMPILER include/linux/compile.h | \ + sed -e 's/.*LINUX_COMPILER //' -e 's/$$//' debian/buildinfo; \ + fi + ifneq ($(strip $(shell test -f version.Debian cat version.Debian)),) echo kernel source package used: debian/buildinfo echo $(INT_STEM)-source-$(shell cat version.Debian) debian/buildinfo --- kernel-package/ruleset/misc/version_vars.mk 2008-11-24 18:01:32.0 +0100 +++ /usr/share/kernel-package/ruleset/misc/version_vars.mk 2010-03-05 23:41:33.0 +0100 @@ -138,11 +138,13 @@ EXTRAV_ARG := endif -UTS_RELEASE_HEADER=$(call doit,if [ -f include/linux/utsrelease.h ]; then \ - echo include/linux/utsrelease.h;\ - else\ - echo include/linux/version.h ; \ - fi) +UTS_RELEASE_HEADER=$(call doit,if [ -f include/generated/utsrelease.h ]; then \ + echo include/generated/utsrelease.h ; \ + elif [ -f include/linux/utsrelease.h ]; then\ + echo include/linux/utsrelease.h ; \ + else\ + echo include/linux/version.h ; \ + fi) UTS_RELEASE_VERSION=$(call doit,if [ -f $(UTS_RELEASE_HEADER) ]; then \ grep 'define UTS_RELEASE' $(UTS_RELEASE_HEADER) | \ perl -nle 'm/^\s*\#define\s+UTS_RELEASE\s+(?)(\S+)\1/g print $$2;';\ Hope it helps Mart Frauenlob debian_lenny_kernel-package.diff.tgz Description: application/compressed
Re: Fwd: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels
On Tuesday 01 September 2009 04:50:45 Arthur Barlow wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Arthur Barlow arthurbar...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:56 PM Subject: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels To: debian-u...@debian.org I'm been using Debian for over a decade now, and it's always been my practice to build new kernel with the kernel-package software that is part of Debian's toolkit. Im noticed over the last few months that all kernels I try to build will not boot and throw a kernel panic. The message is as follows: No filesystem could mount root, tried: Kenel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) My grub menu.lst looks like this: titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 (single-user mode) root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro single titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.26-2-686 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.26-2-686 root=/dev/hda1 ro initrd/boot/initrd.img-2.6.26-2-686 titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.26-2-686 (single-user mode) root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.26-2-686 root=/dev/hda1 ro single initrd/boot/initrd.img-2.6.26-2-686 You can see I do not build an initrd image, but I've never had to in the past. Thanks for any suggestions. Art Hello May be this is about your problem: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=523835 ? If it is true, you can comment following string in /etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs-tools: # kernel-package passes an extra arg; hack to not run under kernel-package [ -z $2 ] || exit 0 or after installing your kernel package run update-initramfs -c -k your_kernel_version dpkg-reconfigure your_kernel_package_name for updating bootloader. Hope this help mertress -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:24:51 -0400 From: Celejar cele...@gmail.com To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels Message-Id: 20090831212451.bc3e3572.cele...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:50:45 -0700 Arthur Barlow arthurbar...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm been using Debian for over a decade now, and it's always been my practice to build new kernel with the kernel-package software that is part of Debian's toolkit. Im noticed over the last few months that all kernels I try to build will not boot and throw a kernel panic. The message is as follows: No filesystem could mount root, tried: Kenel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) My grub menu.lst looks like this: titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro ... You can see I do not build an initrd image, but I've never had to in the past. Thanks for any suggestions. I've learned the hard way that there are lots of gotchas that can generate that message, and they're not all too obvious. The basic things to look for - mobo and HDD drivers and fs support builtin to the kernel (not as modules since you aren't using an initrd? Same for lvm / luks / raid or anything else needed to get your HDD online? You should probably give us as much information as you can about your setup, with regard to the above questions, and post your kernel config somewhere, perhaps a pastebin. Celejar Celejar, You were right. I need to set my PCI drivers to be built-in instead of modular, along with the file system drivers. That fixed it.
Fwd: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels
-- Forwarded message -- From: Arthur Barlow arthurbar...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:56 PM Subject: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels To: debian-u...@debian.org I'm been using Debian for over a decade now, and it's always been my practice to build new kernel with the kernel-package software that is part of Debian's toolkit. Im noticed over the last few months that all kernels I try to build will not boot and throw a kernel panic. The message is as follows: No filesystem could mount root, tried: Kenel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) My grub menu.lst looks like this: titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 (single-user mode) root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro single titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.26-2-686 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.26-2-686 root=/dev/hda1 ro initrd/boot/initrd.img-2.6.26-2-686 titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.26-2-686 (single-user mode) root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.26-2-686 root=/dev/hda1 ro single initrd/boot/initrd.img-2.6.26-2-686 You can see I do not build an initrd image, but I've never had to in the past. Thanks for any suggestions. Art
Re: Fwd: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:50:45 -0700 Arthur Barlow arthurbar...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm been using Debian for over a decade now, and it's always been my practice to build new kernel with the kernel-package software that is part of Debian's toolkit. Im noticed over the last few months that all kernels I try to build will not boot and throw a kernel panic. The message is as follows: No filesystem could mount root, tried: Kenel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) My grub menu.lst looks like this: titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro ... You can see I do not build an initrd image, but I've never had to in the past. Thanks for any suggestions. I've learned the hard way that there are lots of gotchas that can generate that message, and they're not all too obvious. The basic things to look for - mobo and HDD drivers and fs support builtin to the kernel (not as modules since you aren't using an initrd? Same for lvm / luks / raid or anything else needed to get your HDD online? You should probably give us as much information as you can about your setup, with regard to the above questions, and post your kernel config somewhere, perhaps a pastebin. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Boot problem with Kernel Package kernels
In b9384ad40908311750l59cdeb42t783461317bd51...@mail.gmail.com, Arthur Barlow wrote: No filesystem could mount root, tried: Kenel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) My grub menu.lst looks like this: titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.30 root(hd0,0) kernel/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.30 root=/dev/hda1 ro ^^ This is probably wrong. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Comment patcher le noyau avec le nouveau kernel-package (SID)
Bonjour, depuis quelques mois en SID, le paquet kernel-package ne propose plus l'option (fort utile) --added-patches. Bon j'ai lu le changelog et les docs. Apparemment d'après ce que j'ai compris on doit patcher le noyau à la main avant de compiler avec make-kpkg. Je trouve ça assez dommage, c'était bien pratique cette option. Ai je raté qqch ? Y a t il moyen de patcher avec par exemple linux-patch-debianlogo automatiquement ? Merci d'avance, Guillaume -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel rebuilds with kernel-package?
I installed kernel-package 12.014 on a lenny host and indeed rebuilding without clean in between works. Though a lot of file copying seems to happen in every build, but that's not too much. Thanks Manoj! -Mikko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
kernel rebuilds with kernel-package?
Hello debian-users I have been pondering this for years and haven't found an answer: How does one re-compile a custom kernel after fixing a bug or adding patch with kernel-package _without_ rebuilding the whole kernel? I want to test new kernels every now and then and usually the first couple of compilation have issues. Fixing these issues wouldn't result in complete rebuilds if I compile natively, but with kernel_package they do. I find it easier to work with deb packages than to manually remove old kernels, modules etc. Is there some special build target I could use to just try rebuilding the objects which don't yet exists, e.g. fakeroot debian/rules kernel_binary_something? With the official Debian kernel packages I found a rule for rebuilding the binary package -- though can't remeber which is was atm -- but with kernel-package I newer found a similar one. This would save a lot of time for me, thanks. -Mikko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel rebuilds with kernel-package?
On Wed, Jun 24 2009, Mikko Rapeli wrote: Hello debian-users I have been pondering this for years and haven't found an answer: How does one re-compile a custom kernel after fixing a bug or adding patch with kernel-package _without_ rebuilding the whole kernel? I want to test new kernels every now and then and usually the first couple of compilation have issues. Fixing these issues wouldn't result in complete rebuilds if I compile natively, but with kernel_package they do. I find it easier to work with deb packages than to manually remove old kernels, modules etc. Is there some special build target I could use to just try rebuilding the objects which don't yet exists, e.g. fakeroot debian/rules kernel_binary_something? With a recent kernel-package version (12.XX), you just call make-kpkg as you would normally (don't call make-kpkg clean). The very minimal rebuild is done. So, make-kpkg kernel_image should work just fine. With the official Debian kernel packages I found a rule for rebuilding the binary package -- though can't remeber which is was atm -- but with kernel-package I newer found a similar one. This would save a lot of time for me, thanks. Try it and report if it does work for you. manoj -- Sanity and insanity overlap a fine grey line. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
kernel-package or something else?
Hi you all, yesterday I posted about problems with initrams and custom kernels... I thought I made something wrong during kernel 2.6.29 config but today I guess that something went wrong with kernel-package setup on my system.discovered I currently unable to install any other kernel, not only a custom one but the 2.6.26-2-686 too. I am always getting the same error about No init found. Try passing init= bootarg Where am I wrong? regards -r Here are some info about kernel package conf rmore...@debian-agf:/$ ls -lR /etc/kernel /etc/kernel: total 8 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2009-05-20 11:26 postinst.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2009-05-20 11:45 postrm.d /etc/kernel/postinst.d: total 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 612 2009-05-20 11:26 initramfs /etc/kernel/postrm.d: total 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 919 2009-05-20 11:27 initramfs rmore...@debian-agf:/$ cat /etc/kernel-img.conf # Kernel image management overrides # See kernel-img.conf(5) for details do_symlinks = yes relative_links = yes do_bootloader = yes do_bootfloppy = no do_initrd = yes link_in_boot = yes postinst_hook = update-grub postrm_hook = update-grub
failed to upgrade to next kernel package
I dont understand the problem, when the new kernel was issued, I did run apt-get update apt-get upgrade... and I get this error Unpacking replacement linux-image-2.6.26-2-686 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-15lenny2_i386.deb (--unpack): failed in buffer_write(fd) (10, ret=-1): backend dpkg-deb during `./lib/modules/2.6.26-2-686/kernel/sound/usb/snd-usb-audio.ko': No space left on device dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe) I tried to force the installation with apt-get -f install, but is the some story... thanks p.s. I run debian lenny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: failed to upgrade to next kernel package
gianni wrote: I dont understand the problem, when the new kernel was issued, I did run apt-get update apt-get upgrade... and I get this error Unpacking replacement linux-image-2.6.26-2-686 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-15lenny2_i386.deb (--unpack): failed in buffer_write(fd) (10, ret=-1): backend dpkg-deb during `./lib/modules/2.6.26-2-686/kernel/sound/usb/snd-usb-audio.ko': No space left on device dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe) I tried to force the installation with apt-get -f install, but is the some story... The message is quite clear: you are out of space on some device, in the one that holds the /lib directory (most probably, this is you root filesystem). You'll have to free some space. -- Baseball is a skilled game. It's America's game - it, and high taxes. -- The Best of Will Rogers Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: failed to upgrade to next kernel package
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, gianni giovanni.favor...@gmail.com wrote: I dont understand the problem, when the new kernel was issued, I did run apt-get update apt-get upgrade... and I get this error Unpacking replacement linux-image-2.6.26-2-686 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-15lenny2_i386.deb (--unpack): failed in buffer_write(fd) (10, ret=-1): backend dpkg-deb during `./lib/modules/2.6.26-2-686/kernel/sound/usb/snd-usb-audio.ko': No space left on device That says you're out of disk space. What does 'df -h' tell you? dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe) I tried to force the installation with apt-get -f install, but is the some story... Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: failed to upgrade to next kernel package
[Replying to debian-user, including OP's reply to me, which was presumably intended for debian-user.] On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, gianni giovanni.favor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Patrick this is the result from df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/machina-root 322M 272M 34M 90% / tmpfs 1.5G 0 1.5G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 128K 9.9M 2% /dev tmpfs 1.5G 0 1.5G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 228M 25M 191M 12% /boot /dev/mapper/machina-home 136G 99G 32G 76% /home /dev/mapper/machina-usr 4.6G 3.1G 1.4G 70% /usr /dev/mapper/machina-var 2.8G 1.3G 1.4G 49% /var tmpfs 1.5G 20K 1.5G 1% /tmp the system is only 1 week old... I used the default option with the LVM, what should I delete? You have a very small root partition (322M) apparently, which is almost full, and which is where /lib resides (as you have no separate mapping for it). I'm not sure what to suggest at this point (which is why these conversations should stay on the list; others may have all kinds of partition magic they can suggest, perhaps to expand the root partition while preserving your others, etc.). Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: failed to upgrade to next kernel package
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 07:04:11PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: [Replying to debian-user, including OP's reply to me, which was presumably intended for debian-user.] On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, gianni giovanni.favor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Patrick this is the result from df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/machina-root 322M 272M 34M 90% / tmpfs 1.5G 0 1.5G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 128K 9.9M 2% /dev tmpfs 1.5G 0 1.5G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 228M 25M 191M 12% /boot /dev/mapper/machina-home 136G 99G 32G 76% /home /dev/mapper/machina-usr 4.6G 3.1G 1.4G 70% /usr /dev/mapper/machina-var 2.8G 1.3G 1.4G 49% /var tmpfs 1.5G 20K 1.5G 1% /tmp the system is only 1 week old... I used the default option with the LVM, what should I delete? You have a very small root partition (322M) apparently, which is almost full, and which is where /lib resides (as you have no separate mapping for it). I'm not sure what to suggest at this point (which is why these conversations should stay on the list; others may have all kinds of partition magic they can suggest, perhaps to expand the root partition while preserving your others, etc.). Do you have a kernel that you are not using to boot which you could remove, e.g. a -1 if you are trying to install a -2 version kernel? I have a 477 MB / partition, of which 166 MB is used and I have both 2.6.26-1-686 and 2.6.26-2-686 kernels installed. You should probably see what is taking up so much space in / since you have separate /home, /var, /usr, with /tmp on tmpfs. FYI, my /boot only has 14 MB in it (two kernels, plus the grub stuff). If there is nothing extraneous in / (including stuff in /root that shouldn't be there), since this is LVM, can't you resize the partitions? Assuming that you don't have any free space in the machina VG, take 500 MB from machine-home and add it to machina-root, taking care to do whatever filesystem resizing is necessary (depending on what filesystem type you are using). Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
On Friday 01 May 2009 17:52:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, May 01 2009, Randy Patterson wrote: My intention at this point is to make a detailed list of the components on a particular system so I can remove everything that is not needed. These would be older systems that will never be upgraded or need new hardware so the kernel don't need a lot of options concerning hardware. For example, I have used ext3 on the drives and they don't need to access anything else and will remove all support for ext2, ext4, NTFS and everything else. I intend to compile everything into the kernel without using modules. It's my understanding from what I have read that this will result in a leaner and some what faster kernel for that system. Is that a reasonable assumption and approach? This is what I do. I do not use modules or initramfs, and it has cut down my boot time by about 50%, according to bootchard. manoj For my particular use I rarely reboot so boot time is not as important to me as is speeding up processor intensive applications, Have you seen any advantage of a custom kernel along those lines? Randy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
On Thursday 30 April 2009 14:30:42 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Apr 30 2009, thveillon.debian wrote: ers are non-essential. Installing the created .deb will take care of all the linking (/initrd, /vmlinuz, build dir...), boot-loader update (with grub at least), initrd creation/update and such. Actually, with the 12.XX branch, you get to choose what happens when the kernel image is installed, by dropping scripts into /etc/kernel -- by default, no action is taken For example, to create an initramfs, I did: --8---cut here---start-8--- cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/yaird \ /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/yaird \ /etc/kernel/postrm.d/ --8---cut here---end---8--- Or, alternately, you could do: --8---cut here---start-8--- cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs \ /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs \ /etc/kernel/postrm.d/ --8---cut here---end---8--- To run grub, I have in /etc/kernel-img.conf: --8---cut here---start-8--- postinst_hook = update-grub postrm_hook = update-grub --8---cut here---end---8--- But really, you can substitute your own scripts, or decide not to use initrds (which is a sane option if you are building your own kernels and thus might not have any modules at all). manoj My intention at this point is to make a detailed list of the components on a particular system so I can remove everything that is not needed. These would be older systems that will never be upgraded or need new hardware so the kernel don't need a lot of options concerning hardware. For example, I have used ext3 on the drives and they don't need to access anything else and will remove all support for ext2, ext4, NTFS and everything else. I intend to compile everything into the kernel without using modules. It's my understanding from what I have read that this will result in a leaner and some what faster kernel for that system. Is that a reasonable assumption and approach? The whole subject of initrds scripts is something I will need to study up on. But are you saying that if I don't use modules that I don't need to worry about needing these scripts? Thanks, Randy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
Randy Patterson wrote: My intention at this point is to make a detailed list of the components on a particular system so I can remove everything that is not needed. These would be older systems that will never be upgraded or need new hardware so the kernel don't need a lot of options concerning hardware. For example, I have used ext3 on the drives and they don't need to access anything else and will remove all support for ext2, ext4, NTFS and everything else. I intend to compile everything into the kernel without using modules. It's my understanding from what I have read that this will result in a leaner and some what faster kernel for that system. Is that a reasonable assumption and approach? What is reasonable is a matter of opinion. Even though I carried out the massive research project you are describing above, and determined the exact set of configuration options needed to compile a custom kernel which exactly fits my hardware (and _only_ my hardware), I would not recommend anyone else to do so unless they had some specific need or purpose. My purpose has been to learn how Debian works under the hood, with the intent of being able to contribute useful work later -- in the form of fixing bugs, writing and packaging my own software, and (possibly) becoming a Debian developer. Leaner? My own experience is that my kernel binaries are _larger_ than a Debian kitchen-sink kernel, while the disk space taken up for the initial ramdisk (initrd) and loadable modules in /lib/modules goes away almost entirely: # ls -lA /boot | cut -f5- -d' ' [...] 7653318 2009-04-20 07:43 initrd.img-2.6.28-1-amd64 [...] 2041664 2009-02-18 13:02 vmlinuz-2.6.28-1-amd64 2921024 2009-03-21 12:57 vmlinuz-2.6.28-2s13145.090321.desktop.uvesafb # du -s -b /lib/modules/* 210911107 /lib/modules/2.6.28-1-amd64 15089013/lib/modules/2.6.28-2s13145.090321.desktop.uvesafb The 15 MB of modules in my current custom kernel's /lib/modules path are mostly unnecessary, and could easily be reduced below 2 MB (maybe even 1 MB). Faster? I promise that you would not notice the speedup. Conceivably your kernel will boot slightly faster without having to carry out the hardware detection for the 99% of modules that have no relevance for your particular system, but you would have great difficulty measuring the alleged time savings accurately. (There are great opportunities for decreasing the time needed to boot a Debian system, but these have to do with customizing the initialization scripts, not with replacing the kitchen-sink kernel with a custom kernel.) As far as being in a hurry to leave out unnecessary things like ext2, ext4, and NTFS... I would ask you to reconsider. What happens if you meet other Linux users in your area, and they want to give you some files off of their USB flash drive formatted in ext2 or ext4? Or what happens if some Windows user you meet has some files on their external hard drive... formatted in NTFS? Now your really great idea about compiling your own kernel is really going to make you look smart to those folks, right? Your choices at that point will be to recompile your custom kernel, or boot to a Debian kitchen-sink kernel. (Which just raises the question of why you weren't using the Debian kernel in the first place.) I'm not trying to discourage you from building your own kernel. I'm trying to offer information that I think you should consider, and I'm offering the advice that you shouldn't bother building your own kernel unless you have some really good reason. (Really good reasons might include a burning desire to simply know how, or to be able to say you did it, but if one of those is you only reason then I think you will regret it by about halfway through the process.) The Debian kernel team works really hard to make sure that the kernels work, and they do a good job. In the end, I was able to customize my kernel configuration to the point that I can compile a kernel in about 6 minutes on my desktop machine... which is (at least) 6 minutes longer than it would take me to install a Debian kernel. ;) If I hadn't had problems with ALSA support with this machine when I first put it together, I probably would not have bothered to learn to compile my own kernels. The amount of time in invested in learning how to do it now causes me to want to keep doing it, so I don't have the feeling that I wasted those dozens of hours -- and so I am condemned to the punishment of Sisyphus. The whole subject of initrds scripts is something I will need to study up on. But are you saying that if I don't use modules that I don't need to worry about needing these scripts? When you boot a kernel, then any feature required by your system to be able to boot will have to be available before your hard disks are mounted. There are two ways to accomplish this: 1. Build the features directly into the kernel binary, instead of building them
Re: kernel-package??
On Friday 01 May 2009 09:34:58 Dave Witbrodt wrote: Faster? I promise that you would not notice the speedup. Conceivably your kernel will boot slightly faster without having to carry out the hardware detection for the 99% of modules that have no relevance for your particular system, but you would have great difficulty measuring the alleged time savings accurately. (There are great opportunities for decreasing the time needed to boot a Debian system, but these have to do with customizing the initialization scripts, not with replacing the kitchen-sink kernel with a custom kernel.) Interesting, I would have thought the difference would have been a little more noticeable. I may have to reconsider. As far as being in a hurry to leave out unnecessary things like ext2, ext4, and NTFS... I would ask you to reconsider. What happens if you meet other Linux users in your area, and they want to give you some files off of their USB flash drive formatted in ext2 or ext4? Or what happens if some Windows user you meet has some files on their external hard drive... formatted in NTFS? Now your really great idea about compiling your own kernel is really going to make you look smart to those folks, right? Your choices at that point will be to recompile your custom kernel, or boot to a Debian kitchen-sink kernel. (Which just raises the question of why you weren't using the Debian kernel in the first place.) A very good point but one I have considered. The systems I have in mind are some that I don't use for anything but grid computing. I run Bionc on projects at the World Community Grid, these systems will just run 24/7 until they break and I will then throw them in the trash. They are older systems not worth my time to fix so your point above although valid in most cases doesn't apply to my very particular goal. None of my daily use systems would be running a custom kernel. I'm not trying to discourage you from building your own kernel. I'm trying to offer information that I think you should consider, and I'm offering the advice that you shouldn't bother building your own kernel unless you have some really good reason. (Really good reasons might include a burning desire to simply know how, or to be able to say you did it, but if one of those is you only reason then I think you will regret it by about halfway through the process.) I understand there is a time investment and learning curve to consider. But if I can get a little extra processor and ram use from a leaner kernel, this is something I may do many more times in the future so it would be worth that investment. But not if the increase in computing power has to be measured in milliseconds per day! The Debian kernel team works really hard to make sure that the kernels work, and they do a good job. In the end, I was able to customize my kernel configuration to the point that I can compile a kernel in about 6 minutes on my desktop machine... which is (at least) 6 minutes longer than it would take me to install a Debian kernel. ;) If I hadn't had problems with ALSA support with this machine when I first put it together, I probably would not have bothered to learn to compile my own kernels. The amount of time in invested in learning how to do it now causes me to want to keep doing it, so I don't have the feeling that I wasted those dozens of hours -- and so I am condemned to the punishment of Sisyphus. So on a dedicated system that is used for nothing but running a processor intensive application 24/7, do you think there would be any real increase in performance from a custom kernel? HTH, Dave W. Thanks for your time and input Dave, Randy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
Randy Patterson wrote: So on a dedicated system that is used for nothing but running a processor intensive application 24/7, do you think there would be any real increase in performance from a custom kernel? My gut reaction is no, but I do not claim to have data to back that up. If there is a measurable inefficiency introduced into system calls to a loaded module versus a built-in module, then you could arguably get some minimal throughput gain over a long time period given the situation you're describing. For actual data, you might try asking on the mailing list for the Debian Kernel Team, or even at the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Please read some FAQs first, because this may well be a question that has been asked-and-answered to death. Since you're admittedly using older systems anyway, we're talking about (at the very most) losing a tiny percentage of efficiency on machines that weren't going to be the major contributors of throughput in the first place. I'm thinking I would be a Bad and Evil person if I encouraged you to custom compile your own kernels for _only_ the purpose you are describing. (If there were some educational goal on your own part that you were pursuing, it would start to make more sense, IMHO.) DW -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
On Fri, May 01 2009, Randy Patterson wrote: My intention at this point is to make a detailed list of the components on a particular system so I can remove everything that is not needed. These would be older systems that will never be upgraded or need new hardware so the kernel don't need a lot of options concerning hardware. For example, I have used ext3 on the drives and they don't need to access anything else and will remove all support for ext2, ext4, NTFS and everything else. I intend to compile everything into the kernel without using modules. It's my understanding from what I have read that this will result in a leaner and some what faster kernel for that system. Is that a reasonable assumption and approach? This is what I do. I do not use modules or initramfs, and it has cut down my boot time by about 50%, according to bootchard. manoj -- Apples have meant trouble since eden. MaDsen Wikholm, mwikh...@at8.abo.fi Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
kernel-package??
I'm looking to start using my own custom kernels for various reasons. At this point I'm just researching the various options or ways in going about this and in the process installed kernel-package. I learned the hard way a couple years ago when I first started using Linux that before diving into documentation I first need to try to determine it's age. So after installing kernel-package the first thing I did was go to the bottom of the man page and looked at the date, May 25, 1999! Now I realize that is not necessarily the date of the last update but this doesn't give me a good feeling about diving into it's details that could be 10 years old. So is it better to just use an upstream source from kernel.org and build that or will that only create more work trying to get that running with a current Debian distro? I'm certainly not looking for a detailed howto on this list, but looking for advise on the road to take to get there. Or at least the road with more pros than cons. Thanks, Randy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
Randy Patterson wrote : I'm looking to start using my own custom kernels for various reasons. At this point I'm just researching the various options or ways in going about this and in the process installed kernel-package. I learned the hard way a couple years ago when I first started using Linux that before diving into documentation I first need to try to determine it's age. So after installing kernel-package the first thing I did was go to the bottom of the man page and looked at the date, May 25, 1999! Now I realize that is not necessarily the date of the last update but this doesn't give me a good feeling about diving into it's details that could be 10 years old. So is it better to just use an upstream source from kernel.org and build that or will that only create more work trying to get that running with a current Debian distro? I'm certainly not looking for a detailed howto on this list, but looking for advise on the road to take to get there. Or at least the road with more pros than cons. Thanks, Randy Hi, on Lenny kernel-package is still the good old one, so maybe the man isn't outdated after all. On Squeeze and Sid the package dramatically changed, install apt-listchanges before installing it, and dig into the man page. You can see a comment from the maintainer in the recent thread missing the initrd file in the kernel package on this list. What is your specific question about kernel-package, and on which Debian version do you plan to use it ? Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:24:43AM -0500, Randy Patterson wrote: I'm looking to start using my own custom kernels for various reasons. At this point I'm just researching the various options or ways in going about this and in the process installed kernel-package. I learned the hard way a couple years ago when I first started using Linux that before diving into documentation I first need to try to determine it's age. So after installing kernel-package the first thing I did was go to the bottom of the man page and looked at the date, May 25, 1999! Now I realize that is not necessarily the date of the last update but this doesn't give me a good feeling about diving into it's details that could be 10 years old. So is it better to just use an upstream source from kernel.org and build that or will that only create more work trying to get that running with a current Debian distro? I'm certainly not looking for a detailed howto on this list, but looking for advise on the road to take to get there. Or at least the road with more pros than cons. Thanks, Randy Just fyi, kernel-package isn't a kernel itself; it's the tools used to build a vanilla kernel (like the ones from kernel.org) into a deb file. -- http://fuzzydev.org/~pobega http://identi.ca/pobega -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
On Thursday 30 April 2009 09:51:54 Michael Pobega wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:24:43AM -0500, Randy Patterson wrote: I'm looking to start using my own custom kernels for various reasons. At this point I'm just researching the various options or ways in going about this and in the process installed kernel-package. I learned the hard way a couple years ago when I first started using Linux that before diving into documentation I first need to try to determine it's age. So after installing kernel-package the first thing I did was go to the bottom of the man page and looked at the date, May 25, 1999! Now I realize that is not necessarily the date of the last update but this doesn't give me a good feeling about diving into it's details that could be 10 years old. So is it better to just use an upstream source from kernel.org and build that or will that only create more work trying to get that running with a current Debian distro? I'm certainly not looking for a detailed howto on this list, but looking for advise on the road to take to get there. Or at least the road with more pros than cons. Thanks, Randy Just fyi, kernel-package isn't a kernel itself; it's the tools used to build a vanilla kernel (like the ones from kernel.org) into a deb file. I guess I assumed that kernel-package was to build the kernel from the source used by the current Debian distro installed. So if that's not the case and I decided to use the latest stable from kernel.org, is it advantageous to use kernel-package or find a good howto and learn to build and install using a more low level approach. I'm mainly looking at just optimizing the config file for a particular systems to building a leaner meaner kernel. I have some older systems that don't do anything but grid computing. I thought if I removed a lot of the stuff that wasn't being used in the kernel I could speed these up a little. Randy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
* Randy Patterson t...@patterson-pcc.com [2009-04-30 10:28:00 -0500]: I guess I assumed that kernel-package was to build the kernel from the source used by the current Debian distro installed. So if that's not the case and I decided to use the latest stable from kernel.org, is it advantageous to use kernel-package or find a good howto and learn to build and install using a more low level approach. I'm mainly looking at just optimizing the config file for a particular systems to building a leaner meaner kernel. I have some older systems that don't do anything but grid computing. I thought if I removed a lot of the stuff that wasn't being used in the kernel I could speed these up a little. Yup, I do that, and I use kernel-package to do it. It's a very versatile wrapper script that calls the necessary commands to do the actual compiling of the kernel and and then builds a debian package which you can then install with 'dpkg -i'. the configuration of the kernel you do prior to using kernel-package, usually thru an ncurseѕ, qt, or gtk interface. Good tutorial here: http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html -- Cheers¸ Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: kernel-package??
Randy Patterson wrote : On Thursday 30 April 2009 09:51:54 Michael Pobega wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:24:43AM -0500, Randy Patterson wrote: I'm looking to start using my own custom kernels for various reasons. At this point I'm just researching the various options or ways in going about this and in the process installed kernel-package. I learned the hard way a couple years ago when I first started using Linux that before diving into documentation I first need to try to determine it's age. So after installing kernel-package the first thing I did was go to the bottom of the man page and looked at the date, May 25, 1999! Now I realize that is not necessarily the date of the last update but this doesn't give me a good feeling about diving into it's details that could be 10 years old. So is it better to just use an upstream source from kernel.org and build that or will that only create more work trying to get that running with a current Debian distro? I'm certainly not looking for a detailed howto on this list, but looking for advise on the road to take to get there. Or at least the road with more pros than cons. Thanks, Randy Just fyi, kernel-package isn't a kernel itself; it's the tools used to build a vanilla kernel (like the ones from kernel.org) into a deb file. I guess I assumed that kernel-package was to build the kernel from the source used by the current Debian distro installed. So if that's not the case and I decided to use the latest stable from kernel.org, is it advantageous to use kernel-package or find a good howto and learn to build and install using a more low level approach. I'm mainly looking at just optimizing the config file for a particular systems to building a leaner meaner kernel. I have some older systems that don't do anything but grid computing. I thought if I removed a lot of the stuff that wasn't being used in the kernel I could speed these up a little. Randy Kernel-package really speeds up the process of building a kernel, but the bulk of what you want to do will occur during the configuration. Basically kernel-package allows you to build a kernel, all modules, an initrd (if desired), pack it up in .deb in one shot. Then you just have to install the created .deb with dpkg -i. The basic command, once the configuration is done, is: make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version -custom_name --revision 1 \ kernel-image kernel-headers initrd and headers are non-essential. Installing the created .deb will take care of all the linking (/initrd, /vmlinuz, build dir...), boot-loader update (with grub at least), initrd creation/update and such. Without it you'll have to go with the make - make modules_install - make install routine, no such thing as a .deb, and take care of the rest yourself (initrd, links, boot-loader update...). So in my opinion it's worth looking into kernel-package, that's one of the feature I most appreciated when trying to Debian. (I usually build my kernels from vanilla kernel.org sources, out of habit and curiosity more than technical need.). Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
On Thursday 30 April 2009 11:09:49 Dave Patterson wrote: * Randy Patterson t...@patterson-pcc.com [2009-04-30 10:28:00 -0500]: I guess I assumed that kernel-package was to build the kernel from the source used by the current Debian distro installed. So if that's not the case and I decided to use the latest stable from kernel.org, is it advantageous to use kernel-package or find a good howto and learn to build and install using a more low level approach. I'm mainly looking at just optimizing the config file for a particular systems to building a leaner meaner kernel. I have some older systems that don't do anything but grid computing. I thought if I removed a lot of the stuff that wasn't being used in the kernel I could speed these up a little. Yup, I do that, and I use kernel-package to do it. It's a very versatile wrapper script that calls the necessary commands to do the actual compiling of the kernel and and then builds a debian package which you can then install with 'dpkg -i'. the configuration of the kernel you do prior to using kernel-package, usually thru an ncurseѕ, qt, or gtk interface. Good tutorial here: http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html Dave, with a last name like yours I must assume that this is excellent advice! :-) Thanks for everyone's input. I will now travel down the kernel-package road. Randy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kernel-package??
* Randy Patterson t...@patterson-pcc.com [2009-04-30 11:29:33 -0500]: Dave, with a last name like yours I must assume that this is excellent advice! :-) Thanks for everyone's input. I will now travel down the kernel-package road. The tutorial's old, but it stands the test of time ;-) And don't assume anything about the name. We got some pirates in our branch... -- Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: kernel-package??
On Thu, Apr 30 2009, thveillon.debian wrote: ers are non-essential. Installing the created .deb will take care of all the linking (/initrd, /vmlinuz, build dir...), boot-loader update (with grub at least), initrd creation/update and such. Actually, with the 12.XX branch, you get to choose what happens when the kernel image is installed, by dropping scripts into /etc/kernel -- by default, no action is taken For example, to create an initramfs, I did: --8---cut here---start-8--- cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/yaird \ /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/yaird \ /etc/kernel/postrm.d/ --8---cut here---end---8--- Or, alternately, you could do: --8---cut here---start-8--- cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs \ /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs \ /etc/kernel/postrm.d/ --8---cut here---end---8--- To run grub, I have in /etc/kernel-img.conf: --8---cut here---start-8--- postinst_hook = update-grub postrm_hook = update-grub --8---cut here---end---8--- But really, you can substitute your own scripts, or decide not to use initrds (which is a sane option if you are building your own kernels and thus might not have any modules at all). manoj -- Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
missing the initrd file in the kernel package
Hi, When I compile the kernel the file initrd is not created in spite of I'm specifying the --initrd option in the command line. Exactly, the command that I'm using to compile the kernel is: make-kpkg --initrd --revision=1:xps.10 kernel_image May be there is a problem with the application that creates the initrd file. Any suggestions? __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: missing the initrd file in the kernel package
On Wed, Apr 29 2009, Antonio Diaz wrote:
When I compile the kernel the file initrd is not created in spite
of I'm specifying the --initrd option in the command line. Exactly,
the command that I'm using to compile the kernel is:
make-kpkg --initrd --revision=1:xps.10 kernel_image
May be there is a problem with the application that creates the
initrd file.
Any suggestions?
,[ Manual page make-kpkg(1) ]
| --initrd
| If make-kpkg is generating a kernel-image package, arrange to
| convey to the hook scripts that this image requires an initrd,
| and that the initrd generation hook scripts should not short
| circuit early. Without this option, the example initramfs hook
| scripts bundled in with ker‐ nel-package will take no action on
| installation. The same effect can be achieved by setting the
| environment variable INITRD to any non empty value. Please note
| that unless there are hook scripts in /etc/kenel or added into
| the hook script parameter of /etc/kernel-img.conf. no initrd
| will be created.
`
So, drop in scripts in /etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ to
create/delete the initramfs files. You can use yaird, or
initramfs-tools. For the latter, there are example scripts that you
could use as a starting point:
/usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/initramfs
manoj
--
And then there was the lawyer that stepped in cow manure and thought he
was melting...
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: missing the initrd file in the kernel package
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29 2009, Antonio Diaz wrote:
When I compile the kernel the file initrd is not created in spite
of I'm specifying the --initrd option in the command line. Exactly,
the command that I'm using to compile the kernel is:
make-kpkg --initrd --revision=1:xps.10 kernel_image
May be there is a problem with the application that creates the
initrd file.
Any suggestions?
,[ Manual page make-kpkg(1) ]
| --initrd
| If make-kpkg is generating a kernel-image package, arrange to
| convey to the hook scripts that this image requires an initrd,
| and that the initrd generation hook scripts should not short
| circuit early. Without this option, the example initramfs hook
| scripts bundled in with ker‐ nel-package will take no action on
| installation. The same effect can be achieved by setting the
| environment variable INITRD to any non empty value. Please note
| that unless there are hook scripts in /etc/kenel or added into
| the hook script parameter of /etc/kernel-img.conf. no initrd
| will be created.
`
So, drop in scripts in /etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ to
create/delete the initramfs files. You can use yaird, or
initramfs-tools. For the latter, there are example scripts that you
could use as a starting point:
/usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/initramfs
manoj
I upgraded to kernel-package 12.010
If i use a :
make-kpkg --initrd kernel_image
then created .deb will have a initrd image ?
And it will install it ?
Sorry but my english is not so good, so i'm trying to get this clear.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: missing the initrd file in the kernel package
On Wed, Apr 29 2009, emikaadeo wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29 2009, Antonio Diaz wrote:
When I compile the kernel the file initrd is not created in spite
of I'm specifying the --initrd option in the command line. Exactly,
the command that I'm using to compile the kernel is:
make-kpkg --initrd --revision=1:xps.10 kernel_image
May be there is a problem with the application that creates the
initrd file.
Any suggestions?
,[ Manual page make-kpkg(1) ]
| --initrd
| If make-kpkg is generating a kernel-image package, arrange to
| convey to the hook scripts that this image requires an initrd,
| and that the initrd generation hook scripts should not short
| circuit early. Without this option, the example initramfs hook
| scripts bundled in with ker‐ nel-package will take no action on
| installation. The same effect can be achieved by setting the
| environment variable INITRD to any non empty value. Please note
| that unless there are hook scripts in /etc/kenel or added into
| the hook script parameter of /etc/kernel-img.conf. no initrd
| will be created.
`
So, drop in scripts in /etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ to
create/delete the initramfs files. You can use yaird, or
initramfs-tools. For the latter, there are example scripts that you
could use as a starting point:
/usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/initramfs
manoj
I upgraded to kernel-package 12.010
If i use a :
make-kpkg --initrd kernel_image
then created .deb will have a initrd image ?
No. The initrd image has neer been a part of the kernel image
deb, and it still is not. The initramfs/initrd bits arte always
generated on the machine the kernel image is installed upon.
And it will install it ?
Well, since the initramfs image is not pat of the linux-image-*
packages, install is not the right word. Create is what actually needs
to happen.
Now, nothing is created automatically. you need to provide a
hook script for this to happen. The user provides such scripts. For
example, to invoke mkinitramfs, I did:
--8---cut here---start-8---
cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs \
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/
cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs \
/etc/kernel/postrm.d/
--8---cut here---end---8---
To run grub, I have in /etc/kernel-img.conf:
--8---cut here---start-8---
postinst_hook = update-grub
postrm_hook = update-grub
--8---cut here---end---8---
You can look at other example in the examples directory:
/usr/share/kernel-package/examples/
to see if there are other example script you want to cp into
/etc/kernel -- and you can create your own scripts.
Sorry but my english is not so good, so i'm trying to get this clear.
That's all right. English was my fourth language as well.
manoj
--
That's no moon... Obi-wan Kenobi
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org http://www.golden-gryphon.com/
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: missing the initrd file in the kernel package
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Now, nothing is created automatically. you need to provide a hook script for this to happen. The user provides such scripts. For example, to invoke mkinitramfs, I did: --8---cut here---start-8--- cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs \ /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ cp /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs \ /etc/kernel/postrm.d/ --8---cut here---end---8--- To run grub, I have in /etc/kernel-img.conf: --8---cut here---start-8--- postinst_hook = update-grub postrm_hook = update-grub --8---cut here---end---8--- You can look at other example in the examples directory: /usr/share/kernel-package/examples/ to see if there are other example script you want to cp into /etc/kernel -- and you can create your own scripts. Now everything is clear to me ;) Big thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
New version of kernel-package now in unstable
Hi, This brings to an end an enhancement for kernel-package that have been in development for over an year. These changes make kernel-package more nimble (you can just update the sources, hack on a file, and run make-kpkg and it should just work to incorporate your changes, no need for clean). It also pulls out the postint functionality into hook scripts, using the same /etc/kernel.d infrastructure as upstreams native deb-pkg target, but provides for more packages. Also supported now is a linux-image-$version-dbg package, that contains just the debugging information, and which is compatible with SystemTap. Looking at the reverse dependencies, there should be no impact whatsoever on the module packages; everything should still work the same. However, since ./debian is now ephemeral, anyone who puts things in ./debian will be affected. Those users should depend on kernel-package ( 12.001). The only user I know of that did that was linux-2.6, but since kernel-package has been deprecated and pronounced broken by the kernel team, this is not an issue: if it is deprecated, and obsolescent, development if kernel-package need not be tied to linux-2.6. In any case, official kernels are no longer supported as of k-p 12.001. manoj -- Bug #523423: Plesase Remove bitchx from the archive. Full of crap. - Debian BTS Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Forthcoming changes in kernel-package
Hi,
A few hours ago, a new version of kernel-package was uploaded to
Experimental. This is a major change, the new kernel-package is far
more nimble, more flexible, and supports people who make a minor change
to a kernel, or who update the kernel sources (via git or otherwise),
and want a minimal, simple, recompile.
79 files changed, 1776 insertions(+), 3706 deletions(-)
The full NEWS.Debian file is appended below, but I'll highlight
the major differences: This version does not support the official
images (which is OK, since the kernel team thinks kernel-package is
broken anyway, and have been deprecating it for a few years now), it
does not run a bootloader, or manage symlinks, or create an init ram fs
for you -- since the policies governing these actions were becoming too
rigid, and had to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Instead, the package comes with example scripts that can be
dropped into /etc/kernel/*.d directories to do all that, and more (you
can change the number of symlinks you keep, for example). Now you can
add actions to {pre,post}{inst,rm} stages of the package installation or
removal, independently, for image, header, source, and doc packages.
More importantly, the initramfs scripts provided work with the
make-kpkg images as well as the official images, and are thus better
than the script shipped with initramfs-tools themselves, as they offer
a super set of functionality.
This version of kernel-package also demonstrates how the
postsinst script communicates with the initramfs scripts so that no
initramfs is generated in case you do not want it (I personally compile
all modules in my non-laptop kernel, and thus do not need an
initramfs).
I have not yet seeded the env with the maintainer script
parameter arguments, but I'll put in what Frans suggested unless there
are objections.
Please take this for a spin. Kick the tires. I need helpe from
people who run Xen machines, since I do not use Xen, and would like to
make the Xen images work better.
manoj
kernel-package (12.001) experimental; urgency=low
* This is a major change in functionality; do not upgrade unless you are
prepared for the changes required on target machines.
* make-kpkg removes and re-creates ./debian on every invocation
This does make the kernel-package far more nimble; we now offer less
surprise to users who did not expect stampts that the kernel-packagge
used to not do duplicate work. Now, if you edit a couple of files in
the kernel source, and run make-kpkg, the kernel will build as
expected. There are no more version mismatch errors, and the kernel
version can be modified using localconfig as one desires. With this,
kernel-package can rountinely be used to build kernels out of the git
tree.
The con is that we no longer cater to official kernels, or to anyone who
expected content in ./debian to persist. At some point, there are plans
to implement an overlay directory that will shadow
/usr/share/kernel-package/ruleset, but that is not yet implemented.
* Get rid of the facility to patch kernel sources
The patch the kernel facility was adding complexity, and failing to
provide the flexibility required for a generic patching facility. It used
to be useful at one point, but in the modern parlance, witht he
widespread use of distribute version control systems, and various
facilities to manage source and patch them, the built in version was
clunky. This means the --added-patches option of make-kpkg is gone,
the work-around is to prepare the kernel sources _before_ calling
make-kpkg.
* Remove special case code for official kernels
For the longest tine (well, ever since Herbert Xu too over building
kernel images from me), kernel-package has carried specal case code
for official images. This has caused some problems, recently, since
the need to preserve ./debian has caused no end of problems when the
version changed out from under ./debian, or when people wanted to edit
a file and expected kernel-package to do a minimal recompile.
However, sometime in the Etch release cycle, the kernel team
deprecated kernel-package as the means of building official kernels,
and therefore, a full release cycle later, we can get rid of the
special case rules used for official packages. Also, this allows us to
drop ./debian at teh drop of a hart, and recreate it with an version
that reflects the current state of the kernel sources.
* No longer ship header debs that create symbolic links in /usr/src,
instead, ship an example shell script that replicated the old
behaviour. This script can then be deployed on the target machines,
and could be a part of a locally created kernel configuration package,
if one needs to deploy the same behavior across a cluster of
machines
Re: Rejuvenated kernel-package uploaded to unstable, please test
Hello Manoj and other Kernel-Maintainers, Thank you for doing this hard job... I am ongoing to test the new kernel-package. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Rejuvenated kernel-package uploaded to unstable, please test
Hi folks, A new version of kernel-package has made its way to unstable. This is a extensive change, and addresses most of the problems that have been plaguing kernel-package, partially thanks to patches provided by other folk. The new version works with the merged x86 code in recent kernels, while retaining compatibility with older kernel sources. It correctly generates the right set of headers. It is again cross-compilation friendly. The postinst no longer runs lilo when it thinks there is no other bootloader (it used to detect grub, but not grub2). It correctly installs firmware in a versioned location under /lib/firmware. More significantly, the build system has moved to a more streamlined, make -j friendly build system While I am not sure of this fixes some of the nagging problems we have been facing in recent versions of kernel-package, where we used double colon rules, which were convenient, sure, but played havoc with ordering of the rules, and had to have various band-aids to help out with the ordering. The system was rapidly growing complex, with clear indication that it was actually faster. The new target mechanism does away with doublecolon rules, and should play better with parrallel compilation. We try to use upstream kbuild as far as possible, to reduce churn as the files upstream installs change. Some added checks of the Makefile are now in place so we retain backwards compatibility. This should improve things lot wrt header files. We also now add dependencies to more packages actually required to build kernel images. We also try to look for the kbuild created KERNELRELEASE variable, which is designed to be used by distros to figure out where modules are to be loaded from, etc. This should help reduce version mismatches. We also prepare the kernel.release file early, to help that. We also refitted to support the new XEN code in mainstream, in that the same image can be booted normally or be used as a XEN image. This support probably needs to be improved. The make target dependencies have been extensively reworked, to minimize surprises and wasted effort. We also strip modules, based on DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS (nostrip). Extra care is now taken so we do not accidentally remove ./debian while cleaning, thanks to upstream helpfully removing ./debian when cleaning. This should prevent dpkg-buildpackage from accidentally shooting itself in the foot by removing ./debian as its first action. Finally, the changes have made it possible to create a kernel-image straight out of a git working directory, partially because the upstream script does not think that the changes kernel-package makes to the source make it dirty, and partially because we run the kernel.release creation script early, just after patching the sources, but before generating the ./debian/changelog, and this, abetted by using KERNELRELEASE, ensures that we correctly capture the version. I have also added dependencies to kernel package, the kerel source package, the kernel header package, with the basic tools required to build a kernel, so by installing the source package, or the header package, the user should have most of the things required to compile their own kernel. Anyway, this was a marathon two day hack session, and while I have compiled 2.6.25.8 and 2.6.26 several dozen times, I would appreciate testing this version, so we may get it into lenny. manoj -- Dungeons and Dragons is just a lot of Saxon Violence. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rejuvenated kernel-package uploaded to unstable, please test
Hi, Be sure to get kernel-package_11.005_all.deb. The 11.005 fixes a critical regression, born of a copypaste error from late night hacking. Sorry for the inconvenience. manoj -- Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill every time. a coffee cup Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rebuilding the official Debian 2.6.23 kernel package
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Hi, In 2.6.23 kernels this site told you how to rebuild the Debian kernel package: http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-official In 2.6.23 I can no longer do it. It fails this: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup-i386-none-686 That flavor no longer exists. Replacing it with: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup_i386_none_686 the patching operation fails with: ... Warning: No version.Debian file, assuming pristine Linux 2.6.23 (+) OKdebian/version.patch (+) OKdebian/kernelvariables.patch (+) OKdebian/doc-build-parallel.patch (+) OKdebian/scripts-kconfig-reportoldconfig.patch (+) OKdebian/powerpc-mkvmlinuz-support-ppc.patch (+) OKdebian/powerpc-mkvmlinuz-support-powerpc.patch (+) OKdebian/drivers-ata-ata_piix-postpone-pata.patch 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/Kconfig.rej 2 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/tg3.c.rej (+) FAIL debian/dfsg/drivers-net-tg3-fix-simple.patch make[1]: *** [debian/stamps/source] Error 1 ... And true enough that tg3.c just is not the same. Has anybody tried this or am I the first one? So we will see how the compile goes. But commenting linux-2.6.23/debian/patches/series/1 the entry #+ debian/dfsg/drivers-net-tg3-fix-simple.patch seemed to do the trick. Also instead of: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup-i386-none-k7 fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch-i386-none-k7 you have to use: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup_i386_none-686 fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_i386_none_686 but since you are compiling the kernel you can turn K7 on again! Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rebuilding the official Debian 2.6.23 kernel package
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Hi, In 2.6.23 kernels this site told you how to rebuild the Debian kernel package: http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-official In 2.6.23 I can no longer do it. It fails this: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup-i386-none-686 That flavor no longer exists. Replacing it with: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup_i386_none_686 the patching operation fails with: ... Warning: No version.Debian file, assuming pristine Linux 2.6.23 (+) OKdebian/version.patch (+) OKdebian/kernelvariables.patch (+) OKdebian/doc-build-parallel.patch (+) OKdebian/scripts-kconfig-reportoldconfig.patch (+) OKdebian/powerpc-mkvmlinuz-support-ppc.patch (+) OKdebian/powerpc-mkvmlinuz-support-powerpc.patch (+) OKdebian/drivers-ata-ata_piix-postpone-pata.patch 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/Kconfig.rej 2 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/tg3.c.rej (+) FAIL debian/dfsg/drivers-net-tg3-fix-simple.patch make[1]: *** [debian/stamps/source] Error 1 ... And true enough that tg3.c just is not the same. Has anybody tried this or am I the first one? So we will see how the compile goes. But commenting linux-2.6.23/debian/patches/series/1 the entry #+ debian/dfsg/drivers-net-tg3-fix-simple.patch seemed to do the trick. Also instead of: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup-i386-none-k7 fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch-i386-none-k7 you have to use: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup_i386_none-686 fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_i386_none_686 but since you are compiling the kernel you can turn K7 on again! Compiles clean. Installs clean. vmware installs with the any-any-update113 patch. Nvidia installs with the patch reported in: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95296highlight=2.6.23 Purpose of this exercise: to install the ck1 patch for 2.6.23: installs clean. Reported here: http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-November/008466.html Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rebuilding the official Debian 2.6.23 kernel package
Hi, In 2.6.23 kernels this site told you how to rebuild the Debian kernel package: http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s-common-official In 2.6.23 I can no longer do it. It fails this: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup-i386-none-686 That flavor no longer exists. Replacing it with: fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen setup_i386_none_686 the patching operation fails with: ... Warning: No version.Debian file, assuming pristine Linux 2.6.23 (+) OKdebian/version.patch (+) OKdebian/kernelvariables.patch (+) OKdebian/doc-build-parallel.patch (+) OKdebian/scripts-kconfig-reportoldconfig.patch (+) OKdebian/powerpc-mkvmlinuz-support-ppc.patch (+) OKdebian/powerpc-mkvmlinuz-support-powerpc.patch (+) OKdebian/drivers-ata-ata_piix-postpone-pata.patch 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/Kconfig.rej 2 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/tg3.c.rej (+) FAIL debian/dfsg/drivers-net-tg3-fix-simple.patch make[1]: *** [debian/stamps/source] Error 1 ... And true enough that tg3.c just is not the same. Has anybody tried this or am I the first one? Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21 [RESOLVED]
Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You can either rebuild the kernel and turn that off (Note: but in | that case I had hard hangs in qemu!) *or* use the descriptions | in that page to rebuild the kbuild .deb and install nvidia so it does | not mind paravirt. Just to close out the thread: building a kernel with PARAVIRT_CONFIG turned off did indeed resolve the issue. The nvidia-kernel module then compiled and installed without difficulty. Thanks once more to all who helped, Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21
Hello. I did a recent install of Debian etch on a system with an nVidia graphics controller. I used module-assistant to install the nvidia kernel module, and under kernel 2.6.18 from the install, that all worked fine. A few days later, I upgraded to kernel package 2.6.18.2-686 (from lenny) to resolve a problem with the on-board audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 01) The kernel upgrade did indeed resolve the problem with the audio controller, but it meant a re-install of the nvidia kernel module. I tried to do that as follows: % aptitude install nvidia-kernel-common % module-assistant -i prepare % module-assistant a-i -t -f nvidia-kernel However, the build failed. The crucial error seems to be this (from /var/cache/modass/nvidia-kernel-source.buildlog.2.6.21-2-686.1183784666): -- LD [M] /usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel/nv/nvidia.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module nvidia.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'paravirt_ops' make[4]: *** [__modpost] Error 1 make[3]: *** [modules] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.21-2-686' NVIDIA: left KBUILD. nvidia.ko failed to build! -- The compiler used was gcc-4.1 version 4.1.1 (the kernel seems to have been compiled with 4.1.2), but the error-message seems to suggest that the issue is in some sense legal rather than technical. (There is a similar bug report---No. 430577---against the nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-71xx package.) Has anyone else encountered this problem, or does it come from some stupidity on my part? I could use the nvidia installer, I suppose, but I'd really prefer to do things the Debian way. Does anyone know of a workaround? Thanks very much in advance, Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21
On Fri July 6 2007 11:19:55 pm Jim McCloskey wrote: Hello. I did a recent install of Debian etch on a system with an nVidia graphics controller. I used module-assistant to install the nvidia kernel module, and under kernel 2.6.18 from the install, that all worked fine. A few days later, I upgraded to kernel package 2.6.18.2-686 (from lenny) to resolve a problem with the on-board audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 01) The kernel upgrade did indeed resolve the problem with the audio controller, but it meant a re-install of the nvidia kernel module. I tried to do that as follows: % aptitude install nvidia-kernel-common % module-assistant -i prepare % module-assistant a-i -t -f nvidia-kernel However, the build failed. The crucial error seems to be this (from /var/cache/modass/nvidia-kernel-source.buildlog.2.6.21-2-686.1183784666): -- LD [M] /usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel/nv/nvidia.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module nvidia.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'paravirt_ops' make[4]: *** [__modpost] Error 1 make[3]: *** [modules] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.21-2-686' NVIDIA: left KBUILD. nvidia.ko failed to build! -- The compiler used was gcc-4.1 version 4.1.1 (the kernel seems to have been compiled with 4.1.2), but the error-message seems to suggest that the issue is in some sense legal rather than technical. (There is a similar bug report---No. 430577---against the nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-71xx package.) Has anyone else encountered this problem, or does it come from some stupidity on my part? I've seen this too. I could use the nvidia installer, I suppose, but I'd really prefer to do things the Debian way. Does anyone know of a workaround? I believe the only way to get the nvidia module loaded is to build your own kernel with paravirt_ops (or something there abouts) disabled. I haven't built my own kernel since woody and I forget how to do it.. :) Googleing paravirt_ops, nvidia, debian will likely be helpful. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-kernel package:
Do you use paravirtualization? If not, recompile a kernel with no virtualization support. The problem here is that the NVidia driver is trying to use a module symbol which has been declared for use with GPL drivers only. If I remember correctly that means EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(somevariable) is used in the code which is causing the problem. So options to try are: 1. remove virtualization and try to compile again 2. find the offending symbol in the kernel source and change EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL and recompile the kernel. Since there are already so many drivers for Linux and the proprietary drivers are usually a nuisance and cause problems (which of course are blamed on kernel developers), there is an ongoing trend to exclude non-GPL drivers from loading. Of course you can imagine that as module writers use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL more, there will be more proprietary driver failures. In the future there is no guarantee that EXPORT_SYMBOL will not actually be the same as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21
Jim McCloskey wrote: Hello. I did a recent install of Debian etch on a system with an nVidia graphics controller. I used module-assistant to install the nvidia kernel module, and under kernel 2.6.18 from the install, that all worked fine. A few days later, I upgraded to kernel package 2.6.18.2-686 (from lenny) to resolve a problem with the on-board audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 01) The kernel upgrade did indeed resolve the problem with the audio controller, but it meant a re-install of the nvidia kernel module. I tried to do that as follows: % aptitude install nvidia-kernel-common % module-assistant -i prepare % module-assistant a-i -t -f nvidia-kernel However, the build failed. The crucial error seems to be this (from /var/cache/modass/nvidia-kernel-source.buildlog.2.6.21-2-686.1183784666): -- LD [M] /usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel/nv/nvidia.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module nvidia.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'paravirt_ops' make[4]: *** [__modpost] Error 1 make[3]: *** [modules] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.21-2-686' NVIDIA: left KBUILD. nvidia.ko failed to build! -- The compiler used was gcc-4.1 version 4.1.1 (the kernel seems to have been compiled with 4.1.2), but the error-message seems to suggest that the issue is in some sense legal rather than technical. (There is a similar bug report---No. 430577---against the nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-71xx package.) Has anyone else encountered this problem, or does it come from some stupidity on my part? I could use the nvidia installer, I suppose, but I'd really prefer to do things the Debian way. Does anyone know of a workaround? Extensively discussed here: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=90214 The problem is that post 2.6.18 Debian kernels have PARAVIRT_CONFIG and nvidia does not like that. You can either rebuild the kernel and turn that off (Note: but in that case I had hard hangs in qemu!) *or* use the descriptions in that page to rebuild the kbuild .deb and install nvidia so it does not mind paravirt. You'll hit the problem both with m-a *and* the nvidia installer. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21
On Sat July 7 2007 05:00:06 am Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Jim McCloskey wrote: Hello. I did a recent install of Debian etch on a system with an nVidia graphics controller. I used module-assistant to install the nvidia kernel module, and under kernel 2.6.18 from the install, that all worked fine. A few days later, I upgraded to kernel package 2.6.18.2-686 (from lenny) to resolve a problem with the on-board audio controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 01) The kernel upgrade did indeed resolve the problem with the audio controller, but it meant a re-install of the nvidia kernel module. I tried to do that as follows: % aptitude install nvidia-kernel-common % module-assistant -i prepare % module-assistant a-i -t -f nvidia-kernel However, the build failed. The crucial error seems to be this (from /var/cache/modass/nvidia-kernel-source.buildlog.2.6.21-2-686.1183784666): -- LD [M] /usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel/nv/nvidia.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module nvidia.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'paravirt_ops' make[4]: *** [__modpost] Error 1 make[3]: *** [modules] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.21-2-686' NVIDIA: left KBUILD. nvidia.ko failed to build! -- The compiler used was gcc-4.1 version 4.1.1 (the kernel seems to have been compiled with 4.1.2), but the error-message seems to suggest that the issue is in some sense legal rather than technical. (There is a similar bug report---No. 430577---against the nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-71xx package.) Has anyone else encountered this problem, or does it come from some stupidity on my part? I could use the nvidia installer, I suppose, but I'd really prefer to do things the Debian way. Does anyone know of a workaround? Extensively discussed here: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=90214 Very informative thread, thanks for posting that. After following a few links I ended up at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=419943 . At the end of that page it says paravirt_ops is no longer a GPL-only export. I'm very much looking forward to that filtering down into the debian kernel for lenny. I just installed it yesterday and it's ready to go but gdm won't fire up, I think that's an x problem though but I'll switch over to the nv driver for now until I can get whatever needs sorting sorted. The problem is that post 2.6.18 Debian kernels have PARAVIRT_CONFIG and nvidia does not like that. You can either rebuild the kernel and turn that off (Note: but in that case I had hard hangs in qemu!) *or* use the descriptions in that page to rebuild the kbuild .deb and install nvidia so it does not mind paravirt. You'll hit the problem both with m-a *and* the nvidia installer. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21
Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Extensively discussed here: | http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=90214 | | The problem is that post 2.6.18 Debian kernels have PARAVIRT_CONFIG | and nvidia does not like that. | | You can either rebuild the kernel and turn that off (Note: but in | that case I had hard hangs in qemu!) *or* use the descriptions | in that page to rebuild the kbuild .deb and install nvidia so it does | not mind paravirt. | | You'll hit the problem both with m-a *and* the nvidia installer. Thanks very much to all of you who responded---all interesting and all helpful. I've compiled a new kernel with PARAVIRT_CONFIG turned off. I'll reboot into the new kernel on Monday morning (I need to be at the keyboard in case something goes wrong) and try again with the nvidia kernel module. In the meantime I'm very grateful to you all, Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian kernel packaging: changes forthcoming in kernel-package 11.x
Hi, [Please follow up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] The postinst script of the kernel image packages is huge -- but then, it comes from a tradition of a postinst that would ask you if you wanted to put the new kernel on a boot floppy, format and initialize a new floppy, and create a bootable floppy from the newly installed image. Thankfully, the format-and-create-boot-floppy functionality was removed from the postinst, but still a number of things remain hard-coded into the postinst. Apart from the fact that this functionality has been the cause of much teeth gnashing and many bug reports, since the complexity of the logic is one of the most bug-prone bits of the image postinst, it also makes it harder to come up with alternatives to the algorithms or to tweak the behavior -- since one needs to tweak kernel-package, re-compile the kernel, and install it, to see new behavior. For example, what if I want to create symlinks for the three most recent 2.4, 2.6, and Xen images? It should be a simple task, but currently it is not. With /etc/kernel/*.d directories, we have a means of having the sysadmin installing arbitrary bits of code in these directories, to do whatever they wish to post process the image so installed. So I plan on moving the symlink handling out of the postinst. Instead of the postinst creating the symlinks, people can drop in a script that does symlink handling for them. This should not be a big deal for most people now, since update-grub does not really need the symlinks anyway. Secondly, the postinst will no longer run the boot-loader (it does not do so for grub right now). Again, a simple run_loader script can be put in place in the /etc/kernel/ directories, for people who need them. I think the packages affected might be lilo, quik, palo, vmelilo, zipl, and elilo. These packages might want to drop in a script that runs on install/remove into /etc/kernel; examples should be easy to provide. Third, I want to do away with the postinst deciding which initrd generator to run. The current initramfs packages already have commands to create the initrd; and these packages can again dump in scripts to run the initrd generator in /etc/kernel/*.d. This is the chance that initrd generator people have to fix the interface that they have been complaining about. Finally, I want to have kernel-package come closer to the version numbering scheme that the official kernel images have been using, complete with native flavour support, but this can be dealt with in a separate thread. The critical issues are: a) How to configure which one of competing boot-loader scripts get run, if more than one boot loaders are installed b) Which initramfs generator gets run, if we have more than one installed. c) What information would the scripts need, apart from kernel version, and the location of the image? d) How do we transition the changes -- wait for all involved packages to create a changed version, and upload all packages at once in a staged fashion, or just stagger it into Sid? The first two issues are specific instances of the general problem of how to configure any set of cooperating scripts; and a solution similar to those used for init scripts can be adopted (/etc/default/script-or-package-name) So, the next step should be to create example symlink, boot-loader invocation, and initrd invocation scripts for people to dump into /etc/kernel. I was thinking of also including these examples into the kernel image packages, even if there is some duplication on disk of these small examples, at least while the transition is still going on. manoj -- The PINK SOCKS were ORIGINALLY from 1952!! But they went to MARS around 1953!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two version numbers on a kernel package?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does it mean when there are two version numbers on a package. The -number is the Debian patchlevel: major.minor.patch-debpatch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two version numbers on a kernel package?
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:43:31PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does it mean when there are two version numbers on a package. The -number is the Debian patchlevel: major.minor.patch-debpatch So in linux-image-2.6.17-2-486_2.6.17-9_i386.deb is the debpatch number -2-486_2.6.17-9_i386 or -2 or -9_i386 or -2-486 or -9 ? -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two version numbers on a kernel package?
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:43:31PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does it mean when there are two version numbers on a package. The -number is the Debian patchlevel: major.minor.patch-debpatch So in linux-image-2.6.17-2-486_2.6.17-9_i386.deb It is Linux Image 2.6.17-2-486 (that is the package name) Version is 2.6.17-9 (basically the source version) for the i386 architecture. Hope that helps. Here is the DPKG output(sorry for the LONG LINES (made as short as possible) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -l \ linux-image-2.6.18-1-k7 \ linux-image-2.6.18-2-k7 \ linux-image-2.6.18-3-k7 Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name VersionDescription +++-=-==-== ii linux-image-2.6.18-1-k7 2.6.18-3 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD K7 ii linux-image-2.6.18-2-k7 2.6.18-5 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD K7 ii linux-image-2.6.18-3-k7 2.6.18-8 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD K7 So you can see what I am talking about, I just did a dpkg -l -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: two version numbers on a kernel package?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 03:58:08PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:43:31PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does it mean when there are two version numbers on a package. The -number is the Debian patchlevel: major.minor.patch-debpatch So in linux-image-2.6.17-2-486_2.6.17-9_i386.deb It is Linux Image 2.6.17-2-486 (that is the package name) Version is 2.6.17-9 (basically the source version) for the i386 architecture. Hope that helps. Here is the DPKG output(sorry for the LONG LINES (made as short as possible) |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name VersionDescription +++-=-==-== ii linux-image-2.6.18-1-k7 2.6.18-3 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD K7 ii linux-image-2.6.18-2-k7 2.6.18-5 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD K7 ii linux-image-2.6.18-3-k7 2.6.18-8 Linux 2.6.18 image on AMD K7 --^^ this is the package name, which is incremented with each new package release. this is the kernel version number with major.minor.patch-debpatch. The deb patches are not sequential, I assume, because they may not necessarily release each patch level, or the package versions get upgraded without a package version increase (why, I don't know. maybe because the deb patch is not significant enough to call it a new version of the package). So you might install linux-image-2.6.18-1-k7 and get a kernel version 2.6.18-1. Then later, deb will upgrade that package, but not signifantly enough to change the package version number. So you do an apt* upgrade and the package linux-image-2.6.18-1-k7 gets upgraded (we've all seen this -- you are installing a new version of the same kernel, you must reboot) so that now you are running the same package, but the kernel version associated with it is 2.6.18-2. At some point the put out a whole new kernel package version -- linux-image-2.6.18-2-k7 with a new kernel version, say 2.6.18-3 and so forth. this is all a guess, and the numbers are made up. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
two version numbers on a kernel package?
What does it mean when there are two version numbers on a package. For example, one kernel package in the etch installer RC1 is linux-image-2.6.17-2-486_2.6.17-9_i386.deb Now clearly the 2.6.17-2-486 is part of the package name, making it possible to install more than one kernel package, should one decide to. But then there's another version number, presumably to identify different patch levels as Debian makes its own adaptations to the kernel. I would have expected this to result in versions like linux-image-2.6.17-2-486_3_i386.deb for the third patch to the upstream kernel. But instead we get linux-image-2.6.17-2-486_2.6.17-9_i386.deb suggesting that there is more to the story. What is the relationship between the 2.6.17-9 and the 2.6.17-2? 2.6.17-9 would offhand seem to be much later than 2.6.17-2. For example, if someone were to speak of a bug or feature introduced in the 2.6.17-3, would I expect it to be present or absent in 2.6.17-2-486_2.6.17-9_i386? Presumably, all there versions would precede 2.6.18, though. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proprietary kernel modules w/ kernel-package?
Please excuse the lateness of my reply. I don't think this is going to work for me. A wrinkle that I failed to mention earlier is that I'm compiling a custom kernel for these machines, and the driver needs to be compiled against that kernel. Ideally, I'd like to use make-kpkg to generate the custom kernel (which I'm doing already) and the 3M touchscreen kernel module. I can separate out the rest of the 3M utilities. Owing to the lateness of my reply, I'll also mention my original question: For my job, I have to install 3M's proprietary touchscreen drivers (distributed as an SRPM) for MicroTouch USB touchscreens. I am well aware that these screens are supported natively in the kernel; however, my experience with the in-kernel support (as of 2.6.12.3) for these touchscreens has been that the screens rapidly go out of calibration. Thus 3M's proprietary driver, which works tolerably well, and includes a calibration utility. Previously, I had the 3M driver working under 2.6.12.3 and Slackware. The machines for this project, however, are now all to run on Debian, and we would like to Debianize things as much as possible. This means that I wish to wrap the 3M driver in a .deb. What is the best way to go about this? Note that I plan to compile kernels on a fast machine that runs the same version of Debian, but is otherwise dissimilar to the project machines. KP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proprietary kernel modules w/ kernel-package?
For my job, I have to install 3M's proprietary touchscreen drivers (distributed as an SRPM) for MicroTouch USB touchscreens. I am well aware that these screens are supported natively in the kernel; however, my experience with the in-kernel support (as of 2.6.12.3) for these touchscreens has been that the screens rapidly go out of calibration. Thus 3M's proprietary driver, which works tolerably well, and includes a calibration utility. Previously, I had the 3M driver working under 2.6.12.3 and Slackware. The machines for this project, however, are now all to run on Debian, and we would like to Debianize things as much as possible. This means that I wish to wrap the 3M driver in a .deb. What is the best way to go about this? Note that I plan to compile kernels on a fast machine that runs the same version of Debian, but is otherwise dissimilar to the project machines. Kit Peters
Re: proprietary kernel modules w/ kernel-package?
Kit Peters wrote: This means that I wish to wrap the 3M driver in a .deb. What is the best way to go about this? I'd proceed as normal (that is, build the RPMs like you did on the other machines, debian has the rpm utility), but instead of installing the driver through rpm, use alien to generate a deb package, and then install the debian package. -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with kernel-package
I have solved my problem. I installed fakeroot, then modified ~/.kernel-pkg.conf to use it (1). Kernel compiles successfully, and .debs are generated in the parent directory (~/src in my case.) I installed the linux-image .deb on the target machine successfully as well. (1) I added a line: root_cmd := fakeroot to ~/.kernel-pkg.conf.KPOn 6/22/06, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On (22/06/06 21:07), Kit Peters wrote: On 6/22/06, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is oft recommended to use fakeroot rather that a real root command for compiling. Hm. I've never used fakeroot for anything.How would I compile a kernel in fakeroot?aptitude install fakeroots/sudo/fakeroot/ in your command.That should be it. You then don't have to enter your password, and thereis less chance of something going catastrophically wrong. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359832 No, I'm using kernel-package 10.047.It might be a re-occurence of a similar bug. I am using the same version and compiled the debian 2.6.17.rc3 packagesa couple of days ago. Perhaps it could be the vanilla source that iscausing it. (Though I doubt it). Well, I'll try the make-kpkg clean, but I'm not sanguine about the outcome. Neither am I.James--James Westby[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://jameswestby.net/-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problem with kernel-package
I'm trying to compile kernel 2.6.17.1 from the vanilla sources at kernel.org. As this kernel is for a specific machine, I want to append a note to the kernel version to reflect that fact. Normally, I would do this from within $KERNEL_SOURCE_DIR/.config, but as I'm trying to keep this machine as debianized as possible (by which I mean installing everything via apt, and creating my own debs when necessary) I'm using kernel-package. I have configured the kernel via menuconfig. Kernel sources are at $HOME/src/linux-2.6.17.1/. I execute 'CC= gcc-4.1 make-kpkg --pgpsign [EMAIL PROTECTED] --rootcmd sudo --revision 1.0 --append-to-version -pt5500 buildpackage'. The kernel appears to build successfully, and sudo prompts me for my password to execute 'debian/rules binary'. At this point, however, it all goes wahooni-shaped: == making target BIN-common [new prereqs: testdir] making target POST-BUILD-indep-stamp [new prereqs: ] making target INST-common [new prereqs: testdir] making target BUILD-common [new prereqs: testdir]== The changelog says we are creating 2.6.17.1-pt5500However, I thought the version is 2.6.17.1exit 4make: *** [sanity_check] Error 4 make: *** [stamp-buildpackage] Error 2 My kernel .config is attached. Can anyone shed some light on this matter?Thanks in advance.Kit Peters config.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Re: Problem with kernel-package
On (22/06/06 20:42), Kit Peters wrote: I'm trying to compile kernel 2.6.17.1 from the vanilla sources at kernel.org. As this kernel is for a specific machine, I want to append a note to the kernel version to reflect that fact. Normally, I would do this from within $KERNEL_SOURCE_DIR/.config, but as I'm trying to keep this machine as debianized as possible (by which I mean installing everything via apt, and creating my own debs when necessary) I'm using kernel-package. I have configured the kernel via menuconfig. Kernel sources are at $HOME/src/linux-2.6.17.1/. I execute 'CC=gcc-4.1 make-kpkg --pgpsign [EMAIL PROTECTED] --rootcmd sudo --revision 1.0 --append-to-version -pt5500 buildpackage'. It is oft recommended to use fakeroot rather that a real root command for compiling. The kernel appears to build successfully, and sudo prompts me for my password to execute 'debian/rules binary'. At this point, however, it all goes wahooni-shaped: You neglected to mention the version of kernel-package you are using. Is it http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359832 that you are seeing? My kernel .config is attached. Can anyone shed some light on this matter? I saw this problem when trying to set CONFIG_LOCALVERSION but you are not doing this. It can also look a bit like this (but right at the start) if you don't make-kpkg clean first. James -- James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jameswestby.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with kernel-package
On 6/22/06, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have configured the kernel via menuconfig.Kernel sources are at $HOME/src/linux-2.6.17.1/.I execute 'CC=gcc-4.1 make-kpkg --pgpsign [EMAIL PROTECTED] --rootcmd sudo --revision 1.0 --append-to-version -pt5500 buildpackage'.It is oft recommended to use fakeroot rather that a real root commandfor compiling. Hm. I've never used fakeroot for anything. How would I compile a kernel in fakeroot? You neglected to mention the version of kernel-package you are using. Isithttp://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359832that you are seeing? No, I'm using kernel-package 10.047. My kernel .config is attached.Can anyone shed some light on this matter? I saw this problem when trying to setCONFIG_LOCALVERSIONbut you are not doing this. It can also look a bit like this (but rightat the start) if you don't make-kpkg clean first. Well, I'll try the make-kpkg clean, but I'm not sanguine about the outcome.thanks,KP
Re: Problem with kernel-package
On (22/06/06 21:07), Kit Peters wrote: On 6/22/06, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is oft recommended to use fakeroot rather that a real root command for compiling. Hm. I've never used fakeroot for anything. How would I compile a kernel in fakeroot? aptitude install fakeroot s/sudo/fakeroot/ in your command. That should be it. You then don't have to enter your password, and there is less chance of something going catastrophically wrong. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359832 No, I'm using kernel-package 10.047. It might be a re-occurence of a similar bug. I am using the same version and compiled the debian 2.6.17.rc3 packages a couple of days ago. Perhaps it could be the vanilla source that is causing it. (Though I doubt it). Well, I'll try the make-kpkg clean, but I'm not sanguine about the outcome. Neither am I. James -- James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jameswestby.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian kernel package for ubuntu
Hi all ... I'm trying to help someone rebuilding its kernel from sources. Since I do not have physical access to the machine, I planned to build a custom debian package linux-image using make-kpkg on my own debian box and let her install the package with dpkg on her ubuntu box. So my question is simply to know if installing a debian kernel package on ubuntu is feasible or if it will lead to problems ? TIA for any help... Gregor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian kernel package for ubuntu
* Gregory Soyez [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-26 18:32]: I'm trying to help someone rebuilding its kernel from sources. Since I do not have physical access to the machine, I planned to build a custom debian package linux-image using make-kpkg on my own debian box and let her install the package with dpkg on her ubuntu box. So my question is simply to know if installing a debian kernel package on ubuntu is feasible or if it will lead to problems ? I've done exactly that once or twice without any problems. Of course YMMV. - Felix -- Felix C. Stegerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- R. Kulawiec pgppOXnxqln7y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: kernel-package: angehängtes y
Am Freitag, 14. April 2006 18:18 schrieb Elimar Riesebieter: Was sagt $ head -6 /usr/src/linux/Makefile VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 6 SUBLEVEL = 15 EXTRAVERSION = NAME=Sliding Snow Leopard $ head -3 /usr/src/linux/debian/changelog linux-source-2.6.15.20060414y (2.6.15.20060414y-10.00.Custom) unstable; urgency=low * It was pointed out to me that the ability to build third party modules -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Max Moritz Sievers
kernel-package: angehängtes y
Hi,
ich versuche gerade auf Sarge mit einigen Paketen aus testing einen Kernel zu
kompilieren. Die Architektur ist AMD K8 aber die 32-Bit-Version.
Ich ging nach
http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html#BUILD-KERNEL-PKG
vor.
/usr/src/linux# time make-kpkg --append-to-version=.20060414 kernel_image
[...]
CC sound/usb/snd-usb-lib.mod.o
LD [M] sound/usb/snd-usb-lib.ko
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-source-2.6.15'
COLUMNS=150 dpkg -l 'gcc*' perl dpkg 'libc6*' binutils ldso make dpkg-dev |\
awk '$1 ~ /[hi]i/ { printf(%s-%s\n, $2, $3) }'debian/buildinfo
uname -a debian/buildinfo
echo using the compiler: debian/buildinfo
grep LINUX_COMPILER include/linux/compile.h | \
sed -e 's/.*LINUX_COMPILER //' -e 's/$//' debian/buildinfo
echo kernel source package used: debian/buildinfo
COLUMNS=150 dpkg -l linux-source-2.6.15 | \
awk '$1 ~ /[hi]i/ { printf(%s-%s\n, $2, $3) }' debian/buildinfo
echo applied kernel patches: debian/buildinfo
echo done debian/stamp-build-kernel
== making target install/linux-image-2.6.15.20060414 [new prereqs: ]==
This is kernel package version 10.040.
echo The UTS Release version in include/linux/version.h; echo
\2.6.15.20060414y\ ; echo does not match current version:; echo
\2.6.15.20060414\ ; echo Please correct this.; exit 2
The UTS Release version in include/linux/version.h
2.6.15.20060414y
does not match current version:
2.6.15.20060414
Please correct this.
Nach dieser Meldung habe ich im Internet gesucht und dabei folgendes entdeckt:
http://www.debianforum.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=64791
Deswegen habe ich mit auch gleich das kernel-package 10.043 aus unstable
geholt. Jedoch habe ich ja einen anderen Fehler: Bei mir sind die
Versionsstrings wirklich nicht gleich. Deswegen bleibt der Error auch
bestehen. Weiß jemand von Euch, was ich falsch mache?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Max Moritz Sievers
Re: kernel-package: angeh ängtes y
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 the mental interface of Max Moritz Sievers told: Hi, ich versuche gerade auf Sarge mit einigen Paketen aus testing einen Kernel zu kompilieren. Die Architektur ist AMD K8 aber die 32-Bit-Version. [...] Weiß jemand von Euch, was ich falsch mache? Was sagt $ head -6 /usr/src/linux/Makefile und $ head -3 /usr/src/linux/debian/changelog ? Elimar -- The path to source is always uphill! -unknown-
Problems with new testing kernel package
After installing kernel 2.6.15 on my laptop, my laptop suddenly won't boot from that kernel. It doesn't even get to init. It seems to not be able to find the gzip module on startup. I wrote down the errors since all I get is BusyBox when I boot: ... some hardware detection stuff here ... Begin: Mounting root file system ... Begin: Running /scripts/local-top ... Done. Begin: Running /scripts/local-premount Attempting manual resume Done. FATAL: Module gzip not found mount: Mounting /dev/hda3 on /root failed: No such device After that it can't find /sys or /proc, and in the end says there's no /sbin/init. And here's the weird thing: I can mount the root filesystem by hand and simply chroot over, and run the scripts in init.d to get things running. So what's going on? What do I need the gzip module for anyway? At first I thought it was something wrong with initramfs-tools because if I install/reinstall a previous kernel like 2.6.12, that kernel becomes unbootable as well. But honestly, I'm not really that savvy about initramfs-tools and initrd-tools, and what the differences are. The other weird thing is that I don't have this problem at all on my desktop. I don't know if this is related, but I noticed that there are no more -386 kernels, only -486 in the repository. Can anyone give me a clue as to what the problem is? I'm holding onto an old kernel for dear life now, but I know I can't do this forever. Angelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: problème de compilation avec kernel-package
Le 02.03.2006 18:13:49, mahashakti89 a écrit : Bonsoir ! Comme le dit le sujet, je rencontre un petit problème lorsque je veux compiler un nouveau noyau avec kernel-package, en effet au beau milieu de la compilation la machine se fige et je suis obligé de passer par un reset Au départ j'ai cru que cela venait de ce que j'effectuais d'autres tâches, mais j'ai essayé en laissant la machine tranquille, même résultat. Je suis en Sid avec la dernière version de kernel-package. Kernel package, après avoir passé les paramètres corrects va : - compiler le noyau (make bzImage) - compiler les modules - les installer dans l'arborescence du paquet - créer le paquet Debian Je ne pense pas que ce soit dans la première phase ni dans la dernière que se produit votre problème. Je soupçonne ce problème de se produire même si vous compilez le noyau « à la main ». Et ça veut probablement dire que vous avez un problème hardware sur votre machine : mémoire qui flanche par exemple. Tentez d'abord de le compiler par make bzImage ; make modules et ensuite testez d'abord la mémoire avec memtest86 Avez-vous rencontré pareil problème ? Jean-Luc pgpTlL7nAJTlO.pgp Description: PGP signature
