At 11:52 AM 11/3/00 -0600, David Douthitt wrote:
>On 3 Nov 2000, at 9:27, Ray Olszewski wrote:
>
>> Or possibly the modules should just be in with the kernel, all in a
>> single tarball ...
>
>This is the way the LRP kernels were bundled; despite the large size,
>I appreciated it since all the modules were included with the Linux
>kernel - no mistaking which was which.
The size is not a big deal to folks with reasonably fast connections, but we
do regularly see, on the LRP list, requests for smaller bundles, I assume
from people who have slow connections and/or pay by the minute for downloads.
...
>Another question: if I take module X from system X with kernel A, and
>move module X to system Z with kernel A (same version kernel), is
>this going to work assuming that system X and system Z are binary-
>compatible?
What does "system X and system Z are binary-compatible" mean? That both are
i86 systems? probably not, but I really don't understand the phrase.
Module compatibility has to do with kernel version, but it is more specific
than the typical 3-level versioning we are used to seeing. That is, that
both are, say, 2.2.16 kernels isn't good enough (at least not reliably).
They have to be made from the same config file.
I've been able to do incremental module compiles on 2.1.17 kernels here, but
only because the *only* change I made to the config file was to add the
line(s) to compile just the additional module(s) I needed. I can't
(reliably) take modules from a stock 2.2.17 compile (the Debian kernel-image
file, for example) and use them with my locally-recompiled kernel 2.2.17.
--
------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/leaf-devel
