Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

Frédéric,
Working fast here to get to other things I need to finish...
Thank you very much for the additional clarity hee -- I may have to try 
a vanilla to see how tht works, and thn apply the patches forward until 
it re-breaks.

Thank you!,
rgh.
Frédéric Grosshans wrote:
Le jeudi 14 avril 2005 à 15:17 -0400, Trey Gruel a écrit :
 

On 4/14/05, Robert G. Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
   

Ok, is:
   kernel-2.6.11-gentoo-r4
the same as:
kernel-2.6.11.4
plus/minus the Gentoo-specific patches?
 

possibly not.  the gentoo-sources package has its own revision numbers
(the -r* bit).  that's not saying that the changes in the
vanilla-sources (kernel.org with no extra patches) aren't included,
but there's no real association between vanilla 2.6.11.4 and gentoo
2.6.11-r4 aside from the fact that they're both based on the
kernel.org 2.6.11 release.  looking at the patches included in
gentoo-sources-2.6.11-r6 (latest stable gentoo-sources), it includes
the patches for 2.6.11.6, but there the numbers aren't guaranteed to
match up like that.
   

You can have the patchlist here 
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/gentoo-sources/release-11.09/patchlist.htm

(the equivalence 11.09 <-> 11-r6 is guven here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/gentoo-sources/releases.htm )
  Fred
 

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

Working fast here to get to other things I need to finish...
I read everything here, & I thank you very much for the extra info -- I 
may be using this in the next few minutes!
Backquotes deprecated, huh...?  Ok, we'll see how that "plays in Peoria" 
for what uses...

thanks,
rgh.
Nick Rout wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:36:50 -0400
Robert G. Hays wrote:
 

<...derivations...> That is, which
   kernel.org   kernel-w.x.y.z
did which
   gentoo kernel-w.x.y-gentoo-rz
come from, then get patched, and with which patches.
   

Oh and by the way if you just want the sources that Linus built, then
emerge vanilla-sources, there will be no patching from the kernel.org
sources.
 

I still gotta man equery & which.
Next time I boot to linux.
   

equery is a general tool for mucking about with portage, and finding
info about packages.
equery which  

gives the full name and path of the ebuild that will be used if you
emerge 
eg:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nick $ equery which samba
/usr/portage/net-fs/samba/samba-3.0.13.ebuild
if you put the command in back-ticks ` then its like typing the output
of the command inside the ` ` on the command line
eg
less `equery which samba`  (note the backticks, they are hard to spot)
is equivalent to 

less /usr/portage/net-fs/samba/samba-3.0.13.ebuild (except that it
always gives the up to date ebuld as reported by equery)
in other words its just a shortcut to read the ebuild file.
Note also that back ticks are deprecated, in favour of this construct:
less $(equery which samba) - which gives the same result, although there is 
some technical difference that doesn't matter right now. I try and
force myself to use the new $() way instead of back-ticks, but its one
more character to type and all that shift keying to get the $()
 

Thank you again!,
robert.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
   

 

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Frédéric Grosshans]

Le jeudi 14 avril 2005 à 15:17 -0400, Trey Gruel a écrit :
> On 4/14/05, Robert G. Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, is:
> > kernel-2.6.11-gentoo-r4
> > the same as:
> >  kernel-2.6.11.4
> > plus/minus the Gentoo-specific patches?
> 
> possibly not.  the gentoo-sources package has its own revision numbers
> (the -r* bit).  that's not saying that the changes in the
> vanilla-sources (kernel.org with no extra patches) aren't included,
> but there's no real association between vanilla 2.6.11.4 and gentoo
> 2.6.11-r4 aside from the fact that they're both based on the
> kernel.org 2.6.11 release.  looking at the patches included in
> gentoo-sources-2.6.11-r6 (latest stable gentoo-sources), it includes
> the patches for 2.6.11.6, but there the numbers aren't guaranteed to
> match up like that.

You can have the patchlist here 
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/gentoo-sources/release-11.09/patchlist.htm

(the equivalence 11.09 <-> 11-r6 is guven here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/gentoo-sources/releases.htm )

   Fred
-- 
Frédéric Grosshans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Nick Rout]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:36:50 -0400
Robert G. Hays wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> <...derivations...> That is, which
> kernel.org   kernel-w.x.y.z
> did which
> gentoo kernel-w.x.y-gentoo-rz
> come from, then get patched, and with which patches.

Oh and by the way if you just want the sources that Linus built, then
emerge vanilla-sources, there will be no patching from the kernel.org
sources.

> 
> I still gotta man equery & which.
> Next time I boot to linux.

equery is a general tool for mucking about with portage, and finding
info about packages.

equery which  

gives the full name and path of the ebuild that will be used if you
emerge 

eg:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] nick $ equery which samba
/usr/portage/net-fs/samba/samba-3.0.13.ebuild

if you put the command in back-ticks ` then its like typing the output
of the command inside the ` ` on the command line

eg

less `equery which samba`  (note the backticks, they are hard to spot)

is equivalent to 

less /usr/portage/net-fs/samba/samba-3.0.13.ebuild (except that it
always gives the up to date ebuld as reported by equery)

in other words its just a shortcut to read the ebuild file.

Note also that back ticks are deprecated, in favour of this construct:

less $(equery which samba) - which gives the same result, although there is 
some technical difference that doesn't matter right now. I try and
force myself to use the new $() way instead of back-ticks, but its one
more character to type and all that shift keying to get the $()

> 
> Thank you again!,
> robert.
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
Nick Rout
Barrister & Solicitor
Christchurch

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

Nick Rout wrote:
ok, now that i've rebooted windoze again and email is -maybe- working 
again, i'll finish that email.  doe anybody know where i might find the 
kernel-derivations and maybe patches?
   

What do you mean derivations?
The patches for any gentoo kernel set are usually
genpatches-${KV_MAJOR}.${KV_MINOR}-${GPV}-base.tar.bz2 and 
genpatches-${KV_MAJOR}.${KV_MINOR}-${GPV}-extras.tar.bz2

they are patched over a vanilla kernel.
see the ebuild for details
less `equery which gentoo-sources`
Thank you, that is probably what I am looking for!
<...derivations...> That is, which
   kernel.org   kernel-w.x.y.z
did which
   gentoo kernel-w.x.y-gentoo-rz
come from, then get patched, and with which patches.
I still gotta man equery & which.
Next time I boot to linux.
Thank you again!,
robert.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Nick Rout]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:06:46 -0400
Robert G. Hays wrote:

> ok, now that i've rebooted windoze again and email is -maybe- working 
> again, i'll finish that email.  doe anybody know where i might find the 
> kernel-derivations and maybe patches?
> 
> thanks,
> rgh

What do you mean derivations?

The patches for any gentoo kernel set are usually

genpatches-${KV_MAJOR}.${KV_MINOR}-${GPV}-base.tar.bz2 and 
genpatches-${KV_MAJOR}.${KV_MINOR}-${GPV}-extras.tar.bz2

they are patched over a vanilla kernel.

see the ebuild for details

less `equery which gentoo-sources`


> 
> 
> Robert G. Hays wrote:
> 
> > Trey Thank You.
> >
> > That didn't make things easier, but at least I  know so I don't step 
> > off a cliff (and i ain't no cartoon-character neither) by making a bad 
> > assumption about the kernel.  There are one or two obvious things I 
> > can do, although they do take serious time.  Sigh.  I gotta think 
> > about this some more
> >
> > I got a slow-panic on both of the (Linux/Win4Lin(/tarantula:1)) 
> > servers that I maintain, so I gotta "do some of that [admin] stuff!" 
> > now...
> >
> > Thanks again!
> > rgh.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >
> 
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
Nick Rout
Barrister & Solicitor
Christchurch

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

ok, now that i've rebooted windoze again and email is -maybe- working 
again, i'll finish that email.  doe anybody know where i might find the 
kernel-derivations and maybe patches?

thanks,
rgh.
Robert G. Hays wrote:
Trey Thank You.
That didn't make things easier, but at least I  know so I don't step 
off a cliff (and i ain't no cartoon-character neither) by making a bad 
assumption about the kernel.  There are one or two obvious things I 
can do, although they do take serious time.  Sigh.  I gotta think 
about this some more

I got a slow-panic on both of the (Linux/Win4Lin(/tarantula:1)) 
servers that I maintain, so I gotta "do some of that [admin] stuff!" 
now...

Thanks again!
rgh.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

Trey Thank You.
That didn't make things easier, but at least I  know so I don't step off 
a cliff (and i ain't no cartoon-character neither) by making a bad 
assumption about the kernel.  There are one or two obvious things I can 
do, although they do take serious time.  Sigh.  I gotta think about this 
some more

I got a slow-panic on both of the (Linux/Win4Lin(/tarantula:1)) servers 
that I maintain, so I gotta "do some of that [admin] stuff!" now...

Thanks again!
rgh.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Trey Gruel]

On 4/14/05, Robert G. Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, is:
> kernel-2.6.11-gentoo-r4
> the same as:
>  kernel-2.6.11.4
> plus/minus the Gentoo-specific patches?

possibly not.  the gentoo-sources package has its own revision numbers
(the -r* bit).  that's not saying that the changes in the
vanilla-sources (kernel.org with no extra patches) aren't included,
but there's no real association between vanilla 2.6.11.4 and gentoo
2.6.11-r4 aside from the fact that they're both based on the
kernel.org 2.6.11 release.  looking at the patches included in
gentoo-sources-2.6.11-r6 (latest stable gentoo-sources), it includes
the patches for 2.6.11.6, but there the numbers aren't guaranteed to
match up like that.

disclaimer:  i'm not one of the maintainers for gentoo-sources.  they
could have made a decision to hold revisions of gentoo-sources for the
new "stable" patches that greg kh maintains in order to keep the
revision numbers matching.

-- 
trey

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

Post-script:& if I do go to the kernel.org kernel, what is going to 
change, and what will I have to do about it/them, and what, if anything, 
is just going to --stay-- broke/different?

Thanks again!,
rgh.
Robert G. Hays wrote:
Ok, is:
   kernel-2.6.11-gentoo-r4
the same as:
kernel-2.6.11.4
plus/minus the Gentoo-specific patches?
I'm dying here fighting to get my ATI all-in-wonder agp8x Dual-Screen 
working under 'gento-r4 with Win4Lin. (will need 3D, so using ATI's 
drivers.)

I got the ATI & Gentoo to play nice (something I never could do in 
SuSE 9.0Pro, which is the main reason why I came to Gentoo) --  by 
simply copying a different xorg.conf file into /etc/X11 I can have 
single-screen, wide-screen, or dual-head simply for the cost of 
backing out to console, issue one (shell-script-ed) command, & startx 
again.

But!, with the gentoo-r4 / Win4Lin patched kernel (with the 2.6.11.5 
patches), if I go for widescreen, x won't even start.  For dually, it 
starts, but insists on sending my 10x7 14-inch monitor a clone of the 
12x10 17-inch'er, which needless to say!, the 14 don't like, and it's 
a clone anyway, which is absolutely useless to me.

If anybody has any clues on this, great & Thank You, but for now, the 
question is, so I can decide about using a kernel.org kernel, are the 
two above equivalent as I asked.

Thanks Much!,
Robert G. Hays 

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Question about kernel-equivalence

[Robert G. Hays]

Ok, is:
   kernel-2.6.11-gentoo-r4
the same as:
kernel-2.6.11.4
plus/minus the Gentoo-specific patches?
I'm dying here fighting to get my ATI all-in-wonder agp8x Dual-Screen 
working under 'gento-r4 with Win4Lin. (will need 3D, so using ATI's 
drivers.)

I got the ATI & Gentoo to play nice (something I never could do in SuSE 
9.0Pro, which is the main reason why I came to Gentoo) --  by simply 
copying a different xorg.conf file into /etc/X11 I can have 
single-screen, wide-screen, or dual-head simply for the cost of backing 
out to console, issue one (shell-script-ed) command, & startx again.

But!, with the gentoo-r4 / Win4Lin patched kernel (with the 2.6.11.5 
patches), if I go for widescreen, x won't even start.  For dually, it 
starts, but insists on sending my 10x7 14-inch monitor a clone of the 
12x10 17-inch'er, which needless to say!, the 14 don't like, and it's a 
clone anyway, which is absolutely useless to me.

If anybody has any clues on this, great & Thank You, but for now, the 
question is, so I can decide about using a kernel.org kernel, are the 
two above equivalent as I asked.

Thanks Much!,
Robert G. Hays
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list