On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Martin A. Marques wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote:
> > 2.2.13 and patched it successfully, and built it. Oh, I was using the
> > excellent buildkernel script, and with the exception of having to manually
> > update the System.map link (can someone tell me how to make the correct
> > System.map be used regardless of the image you boot from?) everything
> > looks good.
>
> I have lots of version of kernels and load them without haveing to touch
> the symlink. just copy the System.map in the boot dir adding a
> -<version> at the end.
>
> example: System.map-2.2.13
I have this too, as well as System.map symlinked to oen of the versioned
ones. When I booted with this link pointing to an older version it gave me
errors (sorry don't remeber them), but they went away when I moved the sym
link. Should I perhaps just remove the System.map link altogether?
>
> > But before I go and do this on my gateway, I want to make sure that I'm
> > not shooting myself in the foot doing it this way.
> >
> > One of the things I have noticed that bothers me is that I have the 2.2.12
> > kernel-headers rpm installed which seems to haev things dependent on it.
> > Isn't it a bad idea to have the kernel built from a tarball, yet have
> > older headers lying around that other rpms might be using? I'm thinking
> > specifically of when building source rpms that may need them?
>
> Nop!!! When you compile, the compiler follows the link, thats why yuou
> have to change the symlink /usr/src/linux and make it point at the
> directory with the current version you are using.
It's not the kernel compile I'm thinking of, but anything else rpm based
that might need the kernel headers (not sure if there are any, but can't
reach the box right now to see what dependecies there were on the rpm).
thanks
charles
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
