On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 15:37 +0100, Frank Heckes wrote: > Hello Brian, Hi,
> Well, I downloaded two 'source' files: Hrm. Why are you dealing with source files? Does our already-built binary kernel RPMs not suit your environment for some reason? > -1- kernel-lustre-source-2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1.src.rpm > -2- kernel-lustre-source-2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1.x86_64.rpm > > I used the second for the compilation since the first only install stuff > in /usr/src/packages/SOURCE and some more complicated procedure has to > be used for compilation. The first is a source rpm which is built using the rpmbuild command. > Entries for /usr/src/linux-2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1 Yes. > and /lib/modules-2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1 Well, just the /lib/modules/2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1-default/source symlink so this is really quite irrelevant. It's the /usr/src/linux-2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1 tree that you are interested in. > will be created when installing rpm '-2-'. > Running 'make rpm' leads to > an RPM with the specified install pathes inside the RPM. Can you tell me what the first 10 lines of /usr/src/linux-2.6.27.29-0.1_lustre.1.8.1.1-obj/x86_64/default/Makefile say? You might need to adjust some of those lines to make the version say what you want it to say. But most definitely, things are a lot easier if you can use our binary RPM packages. I'd be interested in knowing why they are not suitable for you. > So kernel '-2-' shouldn't be used for compilation? That should be fine. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
