Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:09:46 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has tried to answer my question yet. In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config and genkernel's config. How did that turn out? Mmm... I though I answered that. at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12 genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir). So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig, and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I mean, what differneces could be between them? That's what we're trying to find out. If the diff comes up empty, we'll have to look elsewhere, but it's easy to check. afrodita ~ # cp /usr/src/linux/.config config-2.21 afrodita ~ # head config-2.21 # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 # Wed Aug 29 21:57:06 2007 # CONFIG_X86_32=y CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG=y CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS=y CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST=y afrodita ~ # cd /usr/src/linux afrodita ~ # uname -a Linux afrodita 2.6.16-gentoo-r12 #1 SMP Sat Aug 26 23:59:18 CEST 2006 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux afrodita linux # zcat /proc/config.gz .config afrodita linux # zcat /proc/config.gz .config afrodita linux # head .config # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # Linux kernel version: 2.6.16-gentoo-r12 # Sat Aug 26 23:44:30 2006 # CONFIG_X86_32=y CONFIG_SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS=y CONFIG_X86=y CONFIG_MMU=y CONFIG_GENERIC_ISA_DMA=y afrodita linux # make oldconfig (all default options marked). afrodita linux # head .config # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 # Sat Sep 1 16:40:04 2007 afrodita linux # cp .config /root/config-2.12 afrodita ~ # head -n 5 config-2.12 # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 # Sat Sep 1 16:33:04 2007 # afrodita ~ # head -n 5 config-2.21 # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 # Wed Aug 29 21:57:06 2007 # afrodita ~ # diff config-2.21 config-2.12 4c4 # Wed Aug 29 21:57:06 2007 --- # Sat Sep 1 16:33:04 2007 so, both configs have same options. One thing...are you actually going from 2.6.12 to .21? Or is that a typo? not a typo, going from 2.6.12 to 2.6.21. While you're rebooting, see if you can get your new kernel to panic again at boot, write down the error, and post it. I'm compiling the kernel again for seeing the panic. Cheers, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:47:01 +0200 Arnau Bria wrote: The Panic: Mounting /proc filesystem Creating block devices failed to create /dev/hde failed to create /dev/hde1 failed to create /dev/hde2 failed to create /dev/hde3 failed to create /dev/hde4 failed to create /dev/hde5 failed to create /dev/hde6 Creating root device mkrootdev: mknod failed: 30 Mounting root filesystem mount: error 2 mounting ext3 pivotroot: pivot_root(/sysroot,/sysroot/initrd) failed: 2 umount /initrd/proc failed: 2 Kenrel Panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init sorry if you see any typo, copied from server's screen. Cheers, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:14:29 +0200 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:51:44 +0200 [...] from make help: [...] Other generic targets: all - Build all targets marked with [*] * vmlinux - Build the bare kernel * modules - Build all modules [...] Execute make or make all to build all targets marked with [*] so make all make modules install should be enough. read again. it is modules_install not modules. modules_install to install the modules, install to copy the kernel, System.map and config to /boot and create the symlinks. Sorry, late at night and I read modules modules_install. [...] Cause I tried so, but my kernels did not work... don't really know why, so I'm trying to look for the reason, so I wanted to start step by step, first compiling one using genkernel's ocnfig, and then, start removing options and including things to kernel. well, that obviously has not worked. Google for Greg Kroah Hartmann, go to his site, download his kernel guide. It is a book about building kernels - it should help you a lot. I've compiled my kernels for a long time. I can start with a fresh config and look for my config, but at this time, I prefer doing things in the other order. Is that a problem for my question? is it impossible? My original question was: what a the differences between my manual compilation and genkernel's one? Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has tried to answer my question yet. [...] I don't agree. I has lots of unused options that many people don't use, right, but I can ensure that this genric kernel's runs in many diff hw configs, so I does what it's supposed to. I have seen horrible, horrible kernels created by it. Did they work? Do you think all people need best config? I don't care much about that, but, ais, I compile my own kernels for my machines. I have a very nice working config Me too in my laptop too, i.e. - genkernel couldn't do it any better. And as a bonus - I don't need an initrd or related cr*p (yes, I don't like them). So, you have the option of not using it, but how many working configs for many people has generated genkernel? Cheers, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Quoting Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My original question was: what a the differences between my manual compilation and genkernel's one? No differences if you use the same config. Perhaps there're two or three things in the initrd you wouldn't find if you do a manual mkinitrd, but the kernel itself (and modules) are not different. Regards, Norberto This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has tried to answer my question yet. In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config and genkernel's config. How did that turn out? -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: I have seen horrible, horrible kernels created by it. Did they work? no. they did not even boot. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Volker Armin Hemmann skrev: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel. Your outright lying. If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to stop saying anything. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann skrev: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel. Your outright lying. If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to stop saying anything. Ok, let's all just take a deep breath, chill out and get back on-topic. Clearly there are differing opinions/experiences about genkernel. We needn't get into a religious war on either side; I have a certain way I apporach kernel building that makes me avoid genkernel, that's my choice. There are those who like what genkernel does, that's their choice. I've made the argument that a non-genkernel config is less complicated than a genkernel config, and I think that's a supportable position. I've also argued that the OP should think about hand-configuring from scratch, as it reduces the number of variables to troubleshoot. I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this particular case (Volker please correct me if I'm wrong), which is a valid point. And it isn't FUD or lies to warn about having bad experiences with a tool in the past. If there are issues with my tone, or anyone else's tone, please say just that, rather than adding fuel to the fire. Ultimately, we're talking about whether or not to use a tool, and how to use that tool. No-one's going to live or die here: righteous anger and name-calling isn't appropriate. So again: take a deep breath, and let's try and help out a fellow gentoo-user instead of attacking each other. -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann skrev: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel. Your outright lying. If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to stop saying anything. Ok, let's all just take a deep breath, chill out and get back on-topic. Clearly there are differing opinions/experiences about genkernel. We needn't get into a religious war on either side; I have a certain way I apporach kernel building that makes me avoid genkernel, that's my choice. There are those who like what genkernel does, that's their choice. I've made the argument that a non-genkernel config is less complicated than a genkernel config, and I think that's a supportable position. I've also argued that the OP should think about hand-configuring from scratch, as it reduces the number of variables to troubleshoot. I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this particular case (Volker please correct me if I'm wrong), which is a valid point. well, in all cases ... And it isn't FUD or lies to warn about having bad experiences with a tool in the past. exactly. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has tried to answer my question yet. In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config and genkernel's config. How did that turn out? Mmm... I though I answered that. at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12 genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir). So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig, and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I mean, what differneces could be between them? does genekenrel something differnet to make oldconfig?¿ I must reboot my server for checking it, but I cannot do it now... I'll come back with the diff ASAP. Cheers, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has tried to answer my question yet. In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config and genkernel's config. How did that turn out? Mmm... I though I answered that. at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12 genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir). So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig, and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I mean, what differneces could be between them? That's what we're trying to find out. If the diff comes up empty, we'll have to look elsewhere, but it's easy to check. One thing...are you actually going from 2.6.12 to .21? Or is that a typo? While you're rebooting, see if you can get your new kernel to panic again at boot, write down the error, and post it. -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Ryan Sims skrev: I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this Go read his post please, he is making things up and blaming the tool for an idiot using it wrong. He somehow thinks that genkernel is autoconfiggenrartorsuperai, It isn't, it's a simple script to easily handle repeated compiles of kernels. Anyone can write scripts to do the same or claim they don't mind writing the same command over and over every time they handle a kernel compile, but to turn around and use that fact to attack and descridit genkernel so viciously done in this thread is nothing but FUD. And to the lies: Lie: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating f* up kernels. In /usr/share/genkernel you will find *TEMPLATES* that can be used, but they aren't LiveCD setups to create all round kernels, it's possible they should be, but at the moment they are rough templates you can use to make a .config. Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier. It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles. The kernel make file is very complicated and fragile, genkernels propper step is *NOT* idiocy, but done because it avoid bugging the kernel compile. (WARNING! Don't start doing mrproppers manually, it erase the .config file, something that --save-config option of genkernel handles so you don't loss your configuration) All the rest of his hate drivel is based on this kind of made up FUD against it and he is not alone, you see this hate FUD being spread all over about a decent tool, the author(s) deserve better treatment than this. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the rest of his hate drivel is based on this kind of made up FUD against it and he is not alone, you see this hate FUD being spread all over about a decent tool, the author(s) deserve better treatment than this. Completely agreed. I'm a genkernel user since my first Gentoo install back in 2004, never had any problems with it, at least none that wouldn't show in a normal kernel compile. I mean, it does nothing that normal sequence of compile commands would do... Spreading that its bad and breaks stuff is just wrong with us (old users) that use it with no problems, with new users that will not TRY it because someone said it was bad, and with the developers that put effort in designing a tool like this. -- Daniel da Veiga Computer Operator - RS - Brazil -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V- PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has tried to answer my question yet. In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config and genkernel's config. How did that turn out? Mmm... I though I answered that. at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12 genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir). So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig, and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I mean, what differneces could be between them? does genekenrel something differnet to make oldconfig?¿ a lot. there has changed a lot of stuff between .12 and .21 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote: And to the lies: Lie: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating f* up kernels. exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it. Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier. It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles. and how is make oldconfig make all modules_install install harder to do than anything genkernel does? oh, it isn't? genkernel is just another step that can go wrong. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: an idiot using it wrong. so viciously done in this thread is nothing but FUD. change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? All the rest of his hate drivel ... made up FUD you see this hate FUD being spread all Please stop using inflammatory language. Everyone. If you must have an argument, start a new thread or take it off list. It's perfectly fine for someone to criticize genkernel, or portage, or a hammer, or a car, or any other tool. It's also fine if you disagree with their criticisms, that's what's so great about a diverse community like gentoo; so many viewpoints. Daniels reply to your post is well said, and a perfectly valid objection to Volker's crticism, words like hate drivel FUD and such are *not*. The authors deserve intelligent feedback on their creations, which can be negative, but not inflammatory. It *really* isn't worth calling each other names, so PLEASE STOP. -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote: And to the lies: Lie: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating f* up kernels. exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it. Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier. It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles. and how is make oldconfig make all modules_install install harder to do than anything genkernel does? It doesn't rename to the version you're using, it doesn't keep different configs for different versions, doesn't mount /boot automatically, it doesn't create a initrd automatically (yeah, you may not use, but lots of us do), specially with gensplash on it, also the config and way genkernel boots is good for testing machines that keep exchanging hardware a lot, it also is much safer than reading (and not understanding) make help. But again, its all a question of TASTE. Your taste may be different and so you'll probably (as you do in most mails) put your own personal thoughts ignoring that maybe someone thinks different. But that does not give you the right to diss the tool because you don't like it, devs put effort to make user's life easier with tools like genkernel, and the ones who use the tool like it, as some that would try it would like too, accept that. oh, it isn't? genkernel is just another step that can go wrong. -- Can't you just post your opinion, without bragging about how your choices are better than ours? -- Daniel da Veiga Computer Operator - RS - Brazil -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V- PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Ryan Sims skrev: Please stop using inflammatory language. Everyone. If you must have an argument, start a new thread or take it off list. It's perfectly fine for someone to criticize genkernel, or portage, or a hammer, or a car, or any other tool. It's also fine if you disagree with their criticisms, that's what's so great about a diverse community like gentoo; so many viewpoints. Daniels reply to your post is well said, and a perfectly valid objection to Volker's crticism, words like hate drivel FUD and such are *not*. Show me where Volker is actually giving critisim. All he does is make up stories that has nothing to do with what genkernel actually does. If he at least talked about lets say the template kernels should be more like LiveCD kernels or some other *PRODUCTIVE* critisim, then fine. But no his ONLY goal here is to ruin genkernel, there is nothing in this thread the author(s) can use to change the product to make Volkor happy, only thing that will satisfy his attacks would be to remove the product from Gentoo. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan Sims skrev: Please stop using inflammatory language. Everyone. If you must have an argument, start a new thread or take it off list. It's perfectly fine for someone to criticize genkernel, or portage, or a hammer, or a car, or any other tool. It's also fine if you disagree with their criticisms, that's what's so great about a diverse community like gentoo; so many viewpoints. Daniels reply to your post is well said, and a perfectly valid objection to Volker's crticism, words like hate drivel FUD and such are *not*. Show me where Volker is actually giving critisim. All he does is make up stories that has nothing to do with what genkernel actually does. My apologies, I didn't mean to be defending anyone. I *would* like *one of you* to admit to your invective, apologize and move one. I won't hold my breath, but it'd be nice. [snip] Ok, I've decided I'm doing more damage than good here. Arnau, if you want to take this off list away from the static (much of it generated by me, apologies), please feel free to email me, I'll help as far as I can. Otherwise, I think it best that I shut the hell up. -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 01:09 Fri 31 Aug, Arnau Bria wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:52:54 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/30/07, Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 20:16:02 schrieb Ryan Sims: On 8/30/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Genekrnel used one, so I assume my kernel generated using genkernel's config needs initrd too. There are two reasons for using an initrd IIRC: - you need a userland utility during boot time - you need to load modules during boot time 'during boot time' refers to the few seconds the kernel needs to boot up. That's done when it says 'Init version foo loading'. I did never need to use an initrd, but I was forced to do so lately because of uvesafb - if you didn't patch your kernel you probably don't need an initrd. So I suggest you edit your .config using make menuconfig and compile stuff like fs-drivers and hdd controllers into the kernel since that stuff usually tends not to change that often and go without an initrd since it only adds lag to the boot procedure for nothing. Regards, Aleks pgpAZOTJnk7uq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Daniel da Veiga wrote: On 8/31/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote: And to the lies: Lie: because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating f* up kernels. exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it. Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier. It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles. and how is make oldconfig make all modules_install install harder to do than anything genkernel does? It doesn't rename to the version you're using, it creates symlinks to the kernel installed and *.old symlinks to the old files. So it does not need to rename anything. it doesn't keep different configs for different versions, no, because this configs are allready there. doesn't mount /boot ok, it doesn't. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... TIA, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/30/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... You could diff the .config with the config that genkernel came up with. I would suggest that it would behoove you to start from a completely fresh kernel config, with the output of things like lspci and lsmod as a guide. I've never used genkernel, so I don't know if a genkernel kernel can live next to a regular one. I'd also venture the suggestion that you don't usually need an initrd for a manual kernel (unless, of course, you do ;) ), genkernel uses one to do some hardware detection and such (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), so a manual kernel can just boot straight up. -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 18:42:38 schrieb Arnau Bria: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link Just to make that point clear: Did you just mv /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config or did you cp /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/ gunzip /usr/src/linux/config.gz or did you gunzip /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config AFAIK only the last command gives you your .config because config.gz unzips to config, not .config signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 20:16:02 schrieb Ryan Sims: On 8/30/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... You could diff the .config with the config that genkernel came up with. I would suggest that it would behoove you to start from a completely fresh kernel config, with the output of things like lspci and lsmod as a guide. I've never used genkernel, so I don't know if a genkernel kernel can live next to a regular one. I'd also venture the suggestion that you don't usually need an initrd for a manual kernel (unless, of course, you do ;) ), genkernel uses one to do some hardware detection and such (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), so a manual kernel can just boot straight up. Only if the OP made the necessary changes to the kernel config, e.g. compiling filesystems and hard disk controller driver into the kernel instead of using modules. A tip: If you are unsure if you should use a module or compile it in, just look at lsmod. If the module appears, you should compile it in (a module that's always loaded doesn't need to be a module). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/30/07, Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 20:16:02 schrieb Ryan Sims: On 8/30/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... You could diff the .config with the config that genkernel came up with. I would suggest that it would behoove you to start from a completely fresh kernel config, with the output of things like lspci and lsmod as a guide. I've never used genkernel, so I don't know if a genkernel kernel can live next to a regular one. I'd also venture the suggestion that you don't usually need an initrd for a manual kernel (unless, of course, you do ;) ), genkernel uses one to do some hardware detection and such (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), so a manual kernel can just boot straight up. Only if the OP made the necessary changes to the kernel config, e.g. compiling filesystems and hard disk controller driver into the kernel instead of using modules. Sorry, I wasn't clear. That's precisely what I meant to recommend, thanks for clarifying that. -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Donnerstag, 30. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link yeah, that won't work - gunzip it first. 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install make all modules_install install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 why not compile everything needed for boot into the kernel? you could skip this step?. 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) menu.lst with vmlinuz and vmlinuz.old is all what you need, when you use make install and don't use an initrd. but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... what type of panic? root fs not found? So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. Why? I can make menuconfig and then: sudo genkernel --oldconfig --no-clean all This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/30/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Donnerstag, 30. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link yeah, that won't work - gunzip it first. 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install make all modules_install install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 why not compile everything needed for boot into the kernel? you could skip this step?. 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) menu.lst with vmlinuz and vmlinuz.old is all what you need, when you use make install and don't use an initrd. but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... what type of panic? root fs not found? So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. Why do you say that? I've been using genkernel for a long time and never had any problems at all. In fact it has proven to be totally compatible, you just have to use the menuconfig option and tune the kernel config just as you would do with the normal compiling, except it is only one command... I use initrd because I love my gensplash. -- Daniel da Veiga Computer Operator - RS - Brazil -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V- PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:05:47 -0300 Norberto Bensa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. Why? I can make menuconfig and then: sudo genkernel --oldconfig --no-clean all Well, I make it a point to not use genkernel, but do you think it's slower? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Quoting Dan Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, I make it a point to not use genkernel, but do you think it's slower? slower what? in what sense? This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:52:54 -0400 Ryan Sims wrote: On 8/30/07, Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 20:16:02 schrieb Ryan Sims: On 8/30/07, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! [...] You could diff the .config with the config that genkernel came up with. I would suggest that it would behoove you to start from a completely fresh kernel config, with the output of things like lspci and lsmod as a guide. I've never used genkernel, so I don't know if a genkernel kernel can live next to a regular one. Ok, I did not explain myself properly. I used old genkernel config file, and did a make oldconfig with that as a base. I'd also venture the suggestion that you don't usually need an initrd for a manual kernel (unless, of course, you do ;) ), genkernel uses one to do some hardware detection and such (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), so a manual kernel can just boot straight up. Genekrnel used one, so I assume my kernel generated using genkernel's config needs initrd too. Thanks for your reply. Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:32:53 +0200 Florian Philipp wrote: Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 18:42:38 schrieb Arnau Bria: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link Just to make that point clear: Did you just mv /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config or did you cp /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/ gunzip /usr/src/linux/config.gz or did you gunzip /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config I gunziped it and moved to .config. Thanks for your reply, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:51:44 +0200 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag, 30. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install make all modules_install install from make help: [...] Other generic targets: all - Build all targets marked with [*] * vmlinux - Build the bare kernel * modules - Build all modules [...] Execute make or make all to build all targets marked with [*] so make all make modules install should be enough. 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 why not compile everything needed for boot into the kernel? you could skip this step?. Cause I tried so, but my kernels did not work... don't really know why, so I'm trying to look for the reason, so I wanted to start step by step, first compiling one using genkernel's ocnfig, and then, start removing options and including things to kernel. 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) menu.lst with vmlinuz and vmlinuz.old is all what you need, when you use make install and don't use an initrd. Yep, I wanted to say that I used options needed by genkernel's config: kernel /boot/kernel-genkernel-x86-2.6.21-gentoo-r4 root=/dev/ram0 / init=/linuxrc ramdisk=8192 real_root=/dev/hde3 vga=0x318 / video=vesafb:mtrr:3 udev but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... what type of panic? root fs not found? M... don't remember but I could look for it. But, my original question is trying to look for the reason why kernel compiled by hang using genkernel's config file does not work at first time. I used genkernel for new kernel and worked fine. and config used is same in both case: 1.-) genkernel's: zcat /proc/config.gz /usr/share/genkernel/x86/kernel-config-2.6 2.-) by hand gunzip /proc/config.gz mv to .config So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. I don't agree. I has lots of unused options that many people don't use, right, but I can ensure that this genric kernel's runs in many diff hw configs, so I does what it's supposed to. Cheers, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:42:38PM +0200, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) A silly question, did you copy the files to /boot (assuming that is where grubis looking for them)? I do: cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage-2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 cp System.map /boot/System.map-2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 cp initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 /boot/initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 Don -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:51:44 +0200 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag, 30. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install make all modules_install install from make help: [...] Other generic targets: all - Build all targets marked with [*] * vmlinux - Build the bare kernel * modules - Build all modules [...] Execute make or make all to build all targets marked with [*] so make all make modules install should be enough. read again. it is modules_install not modules. modules_install to install the modules, install to copy the kernel, System.map and config to /boot and create the symlinks. and you don't have to do 'make blabla make blub' you can do 'make blabla blub blib'. 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 why not compile everything needed for boot into the kernel? you could skip this step?. Cause I tried so, but my kernels did not work... don't really know why, so I'm trying to look for the reason, so I wanted to start step by step, first compiling one using genkernel's ocnfig, and then, start removing options and including things to kernel. well, that obviously has not worked. Google for Greg Kroah Hartmann, go to his site, download his kernel guide. It is a book about building kernels - it should help you a lot. I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. I don't agree. I has lots of unused options that many people don't use, right, but I can ensure that this genric kernel's runs in many diff hw configs, so I does what it's supposed to. I have seen horrible, horrible kernels created by it. I have a very nice working config - genkernel couldn't do it any better. And as a bonus - I don't need an initrd or related cr*p (yes, I don't like them). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Norberto Bensa wrote: Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. Why? I can make menuconfig and then: sudo genkernel --oldconfig --no-clean all or I can just hit 'coursor up' and return. ... make oldconfig make all modules_install install and no problems - and one app less that does strange things - or needs to get installed. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Daniel da Veiga wrote: On 8/30/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Donnerstag, 30. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, I used genkernel for compiling kernel in my home server. Yesterday I wanted to compile a new kernel, but this time by hand, so I did: 1.-) moved config.gz to .config in new /usr/src/linux link yeah, that won't work - gunzip it first. 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install make all modules_install install 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 why not compile everything needed for boot into the kernel? you could skip this step?. 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my new bzimage and initram files) menu.lst with vmlinuz and vmlinuz.old is all what you need, when you use make install and don't use an initrd. but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic... what type of panic? root fs not found? So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and genkernel one... I don't know - but I know that genkernel's config sucks. Why do you say that? I've been using genkernel for a long time and never had any problems at all. In fact it has proven to be totally compatible, you just have to use the menuconfig option and tune the kernel config just as you would do with the normal compiling, except it is only one command... because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On 8/30/07, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:51:44 +0200 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag, 30. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, 2.-) make oldconfig 3.-) make all make modules_install make all modules_install install from make help: [...] Other generic targets: all - Build all targets marked with [*] * vmlinux - Build the bare kernel * modules - Build all modules [...] Execute make or make all to build all targets marked with [*] so make all make modules install should be enough. read again. it is modules_install not modules. modules_install to install the modules, install to copy the kernel, System.map and config to /boot and create the symlinks. and you don't have to do 'make blabla make blub' you can do 'make blabla blub blib'. 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 why not compile everything needed for boot into the kernel? you could skip this step?. Cause I tried so, but my kernels did not work... don't really know why, so I'm trying to look for the reason, so I wanted to start step by step, first compiling one using genkernel's ocnfig, and then, start removing options and including things to kernel. well, that obviously has not worked. Google for Greg Kroah Hartmann, go to his site, download his kernel guide. It is a book about building kernels - it should help you a lot. Agreed. Starting with a simpler (even non-working) configuration and fixing the problems will be easier than starting with an (apparently not working) extremely complicated configuration and trying to fix it. Trust me, rolling your own is really not that hard, and you'll know a lot more about what's lurking in the depths of your box when you're done. (I'll also admit to a little bit of prejudice against genkernel...I have no experience with it, but the idea makes my hackles rise. That's just my personal gut feeling, and shouldn't be taken as anything even a little bit like a reasoned criticism) -- Ryan W Sims -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: and no problems - and one app less that does strange things - or needs to get installed. again... you seem to not know what an initrd is good for bye This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Norberto Bensa wrote: Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: and no problems - and one app less that does strange things - or needs to get installed. again... you seem to not know what an initrd is good for besides people using raid? if you don't have a strange setup (like raid), an initrd is good for nothing. oh, and you don't even need genkernel to have an initrd (gasp!). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: if you don't have a strange setup (like raid), an initrd is good for nothing. $ mount /dev/dm-8 on / type reiserfs (rw,noatime) got it?? oh, and you don't even need genkernel to have an initrd (gasp!). true... but have you tried to setup an initrd by hand?? bye This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
Personally, I find genkernel really nice (and yes I've got a raided setup)... but even if I didn't I'd still use it. As for those folks that don't like it, well ... it's optional! I guess if I were building kernels for Gentoo and (say) Centos systems, then I might want to use a method that works for all distros... 2c Mark Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Norberto Bensa wrote: Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: and no problems - and one app less that does strange things - or needs to get installed. again... you seem to not know what an initrd is good for besides people using raid? if you don't have a strange setup (like raid), an initrd is good for nothing. oh, and you don't even need genkernel to have an initrd (gasp!). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Norberto Bensa wrote: Quoting Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: if you don't have a strange setup (like raid), an initrd is good for nothing. $ mount /dev/dm-8 on / type reiserfs (rw,noatime) got it?? as I said, 'strange setup' - but even that is not an argument for genkernel. only one for initrd. oh, and you don't even need genkernel to have an initrd (gasp!). true... but have you tried to setup an initrd by hand?? no, why? If there is a way around them, I'll never use them: * sys-apps/mkinitrd Latest version available: 4.2.0.3 Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ] Size of downloaded files: [no/bad digest] Homepage:http://www.redhat.com/ Description: Tools for creating initrd images License: GPL-2 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
