Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig ?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:01 AM, James wrote: > Hello, > > After copying the current ".config" to the newly linked sources > (/usr/src/linux) I use to run 'make oldconfig'. Now, looking at > the gentoo wiki [1] I see (2) choices but no 'make oldconfig':: > > 1) #make silentoldconfig > > 2) #make olddefconfig > > 3) #make oldconfig > > (3) still seems to work. (2) uses defaults so I do not want that, but > what about (1)? What's the difference between (1) and (3) ? Where do > I read about them of find the sources? > > I did notice after running (3) and then 'make && make modules install' > the slilentoldconfig script was ran (it flashed by quickly):: > > scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig > > Evidently, I'm a step behind kernel building semantics > > curiously, > James > > > [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel/Upgrade > > > > Although not specific to the question asked, but just an observation I have made, when using 'make oldconfig', copying the current '.config' to the directory containing the sources for the new kernel is not required, provided 'make install' was used to install the previous kernel, which would have put the config file into the boot directory. 'make oldconfig' uses the config file for the old kernel found in the '/boot' directory to generate a new '.config' file.
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig ?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:01 AM, James wrote: > > After copying the current ".config" to the newly linked sources > (/usr/src/linux) I use to run 'make oldconfig'. Now, looking at > the gentoo wiki [1] I see (2) choices but no 'make oldconfig':: > > 1) #make silentoldconfig > > 2) #make olddefconfig > > 3) #make oldconfig > > (3) still seems to work. (2) uses defaults so I do not want that, but > what about (1)? What's the difference between (1) and (3) ? Where do > I read about them of find the sources? > > I did notice after running (3) and then 'make && make modules install' > the slilentoldconfig script was ran (it flashed by quickly):: > > scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig olddefconfig uses defaults for new symbols but oldconfig for "old" symbols. It's the same as 'yes "" | make oldconfig'. >From "make help", silentoldconfig="Same as oldconfig, but quietly, additionally update deps". But there's so much screen output when you run them that I don't think that you can spot the difference (I couldn't when I tried a few years ago; and IIRC 'yes "" | make silentoldconfig' fails - I can't remember why).
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig ?
On 04/18/2016 07:01 PM, James wrote: > Hello, > > After copying the current ".config" to the newly linked sources > (/usr/src/linux) I use to run 'make oldconfig'. Now, looking at > the gentoo wiki [1] I see (2) choices but no 'make oldconfig':: > > 1) #make silentoldconfig > > 2) #make olddefconfig > > 3) #make oldconfig > > (3) still seems to work. (2) uses defaults so I do not want that, but > what about (1)? What's the difference between (1) and (3) ? Where do > I read about them of find the sources? > make silentoldconfig works the same way as oldconfig, but it doesn't echo every thing it parses, it only prints to the screen when it has a question. Dan
[gentoo-user] make oldconfig ?
Hello, After copying the current ".config" to the newly linked sources (/usr/src/linux) I use to run 'make oldconfig'. Now, looking at the gentoo wiki [1] I see (2) choices but no 'make oldconfig':: 1) #make silentoldconfig 2) #make olddefconfig 3) #make oldconfig (3) still seems to work. (2) uses defaults so I do not want that, but what about (1)? What's the difference between (1) and (3) ? Where do I read about them of find the sources? I did notice after running (3) and then 'make && make modules install' the slilentoldconfig script was ran (it flashed by quickly):: scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig Evidently, I'm a step behind kernel building semantics curiously, James [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel/Upgrade
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On 08/01/2011 12:00 PM, kashani wrote: > On 7/31/2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: >> Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, >> 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). >> >> Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go >> directly to `make menuconfig`? > > Necessary to run make old config? No. > > Easier and simpler most of the time? Yes. > Use oldconfig. Running 'oldconfig' will prompt you for any new sections/drivers that have appeared since your last kernel. Running 'menuconfig' will silently accept all of the defaults for these new options. Why is it safer if only the new stuff gets defaulted? Because on more than one occasion, there has been a group of drivers, e.g. wireless chipsets, that got a new "enable anything" option. So while you may have had your Atheros chipset enabled in the old kernel, the new kernel has a "enable wireless networking" option that defaults to "no" despite the fact that your old kernel had one or more wireless chipsets enabled. This also happened with the entire SATA subsystem, resulting in at least one extra trip to the office for me. I'm not bitter, though.
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On 7/31/2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Necessary to run make old config? No. Easier and simpler most of the time? Yes. I like to make a fresh kernel from scratch every year or so without any previous settings to keep the cruft out. I last did it for my vbox image figuring I was going to need to very little hardware support so starting fresh made sense. kashani
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:06:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about "[gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?": >Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, >2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). > >Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go >directly to `make menuconfig`? For some years now, make menuconfig has performed a silent make oldconfig before it brings up the menu. I stopped using make oldconfig in about 2007, after I was confident that the change to make menuconfig was working. - -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] == dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) == -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk42lHgACgkQRQ2Fs59Psv8qGwCeMv0fJ2mF8WcPm620U3m2iM5Y usYAnR2lUFi2jgBCmLDOIqAEZ22tzM7m =uV/i -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Sunday, July 31 at 21:23 (-0500), Jeremy McSpadden said: > Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. > > -- > Jeremy McSpadden > def...@uberpenguin.net > > > > > On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > > Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, > > 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). > > > > Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go > > directly to `make menuconfig`? > > Agreed, although it should be possible to go straight to menuconfig, what I think that does is basically says 'n' to all the changes, and you never get to see what you said no to. (Unless you have a *very* good memory and peruse though everything in menuconfig (but that isn't entirely correct either since some menu options will not be visible since you implicitly said not to them). Usually, I just do an oldconfig after a kernel upgrade. If I also need to explicitly enable/disable something, then i do an oldconfig followed by a menuconfig.
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Jul 31, 2011 7:06 PM, "Pandu Poluan" wrote: > > Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, > 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). > > Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go > directly to `make menuconfig`? > You may also want to try "make silentoldconfig"
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, > 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). > > Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go > directly to `make menuconfig`? > > Rgds, It is not necessary but you'll be starting from scratch. Linux often suggests that's the best thing to do but I've done make oldconfig for 12 years now and never had a problem that I could trace back to using it. It certainly saves time. I also ALWAYS run make menuconfig following make oldconfig mainly so I can exit from menuconfig and get messages (if any) about config problems. Hope this helps, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Jeremy McSpadden wrote: Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net Yep. I always run make oldconfig then just run make && make modules_install. Once oldconfig is done, the kernel should be configured and ready to build. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, > 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). > > Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go > directly to `make menuconfig`? > > Rgds, > > > -- > -- > Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer > My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/ > > >
[gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, -- -- Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig
Eric Martin wrote: Dale wrote: Daniel Pielmeier wrote: At least in the kernel Makefile there is no hint about /proc/config.gz which contains the running kernel configuration, so I think make oldconfig or your favourite kernel configuration tool is still needed. If there is no .config or .config.old it will load a default configuration which is probably not what you want. Having a config in /proc is a option in the kernel. You just have to turn it on. It is under the General setup as "Enable access to .config through /proc/config.gz". I have mine here: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # ls -al /proc/config* -r--r--r-- 1 root root 10060 2008-08-05 14:19 /proc/config.gz [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # It can prove helpful at times. Dale :-) :-) yeah, but it doesn't change that you still have to run make oldconfig. I love /proc/config.gz, especially because of zless and zgrep True, I took what you wrote a little differently than what I think was intended. You do still have to run make oldconfig tho. I may test not running it just to see but I would not take the chance long term. It may work fine but it may not. It doesn't take to long to run so why not? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig
Dale wrote: > Daniel Pielmeier wrote: >> 2008/8/4, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> It seems like I remember that 'make oldconfig' is not >>> needed any more, to pass the current (booted) kernel >>> option to the .config for building a new kernel. >>> >>> Of is 'make oldconfig' still a good idea? >>> >>> >>> James >>> >> >> At least in the kernel Makefile there is no hint about /proc/config.gz >> which contains the running kernel configuration, so I think make >> oldconfig or your favourite kernel configuration tool is still needed. >> If there is no .config or .config.old it will load a default >> configuration which is probably not what you want. >> >> >> > Having a config in /proc is a option in the kernel. You just have to > turn it on. It is under the General setup as "Enable access to .config > through /proc/config.gz". I have mine here: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # ls -al /proc/config* > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 10060 2008-08-05 14:19 /proc/config.gz > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # > > > It can prove helpful at times. > > Dale > > :-) :-) yeah, but it doesn't change that you still have to run make oldconfig. I love /proc/config.gz, especially because of zless and zgrep -- Eric Martin Key fingerprint = D1C4 086E DBB5 C18E 6FDA B215 6A25 7174 A941 3B9F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig
Daniel Pielmeier wrote: 2008/8/4, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hello, It seems like I remember that 'make oldconfig' is not needed any more, to pass the current (booted) kernel option to the .config for building a new kernel. Of is 'make oldconfig' still a good idea? James At least in the kernel Makefile there is no hint about /proc/config.gz which contains the running kernel configuration, so I think make oldconfig or your favourite kernel configuration tool is still needed. If there is no .config or .config.old it will load a default configuration which is probably not what you want. Having a config in /proc is a option in the kernel. You just have to turn it on. It is under the General setup as "Enable access to .config through /proc/config.gz". I have mine here: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # ls -al /proc/config* -r--r--r-- 1 root root 10060 2008-08-05 14:19 /proc/config.gz [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # It can prove helpful at times. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig
2008/8/4, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > > It seems like I remember that 'make oldconfig' is not > needed any more, to pass the current (booted) kernel > option to the .config for building a new kernel. > > Of is 'make oldconfig' still a good idea? > > > James At least in the kernel Makefile there is no hint about /proc/config.gz which contains the running kernel configuration, so I think make oldconfig or your favourite kernel configuration tool is still needed. If there is no .config or .config.old it will load a default configuration which is probably not what you want.
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig
James wrote: > Hello, > > It seems like I remember that 'make oldconfig' is not > needed any more, to pass the current (booted) kernel > option to the .config for building a new kernel. > > Of is 'make oldconfig' still a good idea? > > > James > > > > You still need make oldconfig AFAIK. I copy my .config to the new sources branch and run make oldconfig just like always. -- Eric Martin Key fingerprint = D1C4 086E DBB5 C18E 6FDA B215 6A25 7174 A941 3B9F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] make oldconfig
Hello, It seems like I remember that 'make oldconfig' is not needed any more, to pass the current (booted) kernel option to the .config for building a new kernel. Of is 'make oldconfig' still a good idea? James
[gentoo-user] make oldconfig behaviour
Hi all, I faced an ethernet driver miss during my kernel configuration, because I had a wrong idea of what 'make oldconfig' did. I thought the oldconfig target build up a new .config file starting from the /proc/config.gz one then asking for new options. But It was not the case here: sd-4421 linux-2.6.20-gentoo-r8 # gunzip -c /proc/config.gz | grep VIA CONFIG_MVIAC3_2=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_VIA82CXXX=y CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_VIA=y CONFIG_VIA_RHINE=y # CONFIG_VIA_RHINE_MMIO is not set # CONFIG_VIA_RHINE_NAPI is not set CONFIG_VIA_VELOCITY=y CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIA=y CONFIG_I2C_VIA=m CONFIG_I2C_VIAPRO=m # CONFIG_SENSORS_VIA686A is not set sd-4421 linux-2.6.20-gentoo-r8 # make mrproper oldconfig [snip] sd-4421 linux-2.6.20-gentoo-r8 # grep VIA .config # CONFIG_MVIAC3_2 is not set # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_VIA82CXXX is not set CONFIG_SATA_VIA=y # CONFIG_PATA_VIA is not set # CONFIG_VIA_RHINE is not set # CONFIG_VIA_VELOCITY is not set CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIA=y # CONFIG_AGP_VIA is not set # CONFIG_SOUND_VIA82CXXX is not set So, I did not build up the VIA RHINE and VELOCITY drivers. Now I have to build my conf again since the whole configuration may not suit what I was looking for. Anyone to tell me what oldconfig target does ? Many thanks for your support, Gal' -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
