On 13.09.2007 19:22, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 12.09.2007 22:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
it never went upstream like a "make install_develstuff" that
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi Sam!
>
> On 12.09.2007 22:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >> I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
> >> it never went upstream like a "make install_develstuff" that install all
> >> the needed bits
Hi Sam!
On 12.09.2007 22:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
>> it never went upstream like a "make install_develstuff" that install all
>> the needed bits to
>> /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build/
> Last time I saw the patch is was to
On 09/12/2007 01:09 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Fedora BTW abandoned kernel-source* and they have now a website with a
> description
> how to produce a configured kernel source tree (e.g. for out-of-tree
> modules).
>
The kernel-devel package is all that's needed for out-of-tree modules.
-
To
On 09/12/2007 01:09 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Fedora BTW abandoned kernel-source* and they have now a website with a
description
how to produce a configured kernel source tree (e.g. for out-of-tree
modules).
The kernel-devel package is all that's needed for out-of-tree modules.
-
To
Hi Sam!
On 12.09.2007 22:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
it never went upstream like a make install_develstuff that install all
the needed bits to
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build/
Last time I saw the patch is was to ugly to
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi Sam!
On 12.09.2007 22:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
it never went upstream like a make install_develstuff that install all
the needed bits to
On 13.09.2007 19:22, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:09:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 12.09.2007 22:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
it never went upstream like a make install_develstuff that install all
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Sep 12 2007 20:23, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:16 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's
which contain the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files,
On Sep 12 2007 20:23, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:16 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>>
>>> But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's
>>> which contain the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files,
>>> etc.) - including a matching .config and
Hi knurd.
> I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
> it never went upstream like a "make install_develstuff" that install all
> the needed bits to
> /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build/
Last time I saw the patch is was to ugly to consider.
Now that is maybe a year
On 12.09.2007 20:03, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 10:31 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:09:26 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> [...]
>>> Fedora BTW abandoned kernel-source* and they have now a website with a
>>> description
>>> how to produce a configured
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:16 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's which
> > contain
> > the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files, etc.) - including a
> > matching
> > .config and after `make oldconfig` - so that one can build
>
> But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's which
> contain
> the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files, etc.) - including a
> matching
> .config and after `make oldconfig` - so that one can build out-of-tree
> modules
> after installing it with "KSRC=" (or
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:51 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:11:21PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:05 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > []
> > > Being rpm ignorant I do not know what the expected content of a
> > > kernel-source RPM
> > > are
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 10:31 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:09:26 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
> >> I'm on a SuSE system.
> >>
> >> I'm working on automating the install of said system, but it needs a
> >> Linus kernel - 2.6.21.7 specifically, and it needs kernel
' (though this is not an authoritative answer) way is to
build the rpm the same way SUSE did. This ensures best compatibility and
the fewest surprises. I am not saying it is easy, though.
>>> Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
>>> RPM? Or do peop
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:11:21PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:05 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> []
> > Being rpm ignorant I do not know what the expected content of a
> > kernel-source RPM
> > are but this is the available targets for kernel packaging (from make
with "make rpm".
>
> Well, then there must be a .spec file somewhere which just wants to be
> extended.
I'm not sure this is going to be any easier to automate, if that's what's
required.
>> Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
>> RPM? Or do peopl
re which just wants to be
extended.
> Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
> RPM? Or do people pretty much all just dump the source in /usr/src, and
Yes, you put all the steps you do by hand into the .spec file. That's
it.
> manually update symlinks as needed? If the
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:05 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[]
> Being rpm ignorant I do not know what the expected content of a kernel-source
> RPM
> are but this is the available targets for kernel packaging (from make help):
The kernel-source including all patches and configured as usually to
nstall of said system, but it needs a
> Linus kernel - 2.6.21.7 specifically, and it needs kernel source too so
> that we can build modules in the field as needed.
>
> I see you can make an rpm of a bootable kernel with "make rpm".
>
> Is there a streamlined way of building a
system, but it needs a
> Linus kernel - 2.6.21.7 specifically, and it needs kernel source too so
> that we can build modules in the field as needed.
>
> I see you can make an rpm of a bootable kernel with "make rpm".
>
> Is there a streamlined way of building a corres
so
that we can build modules in the field as needed.
I see you can make an rpm of a bootable kernel with "make rpm".
Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all just dump the source in /usr/src, and
manually update symlinks
so
that we can build modules in the field as needed.
I see you can make an rpm of a bootable kernel with make rpm.
Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all just dump the source in /usr/src, and
manually update symlinks as needed
a
Linus kernel - 2.6.21.7 specifically, and it needs kernel source too so
that we can build modules in the field as needed.
I see you can make an rpm of a bootable kernel with make rpm.
Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all just
a
Linus kernel - 2.6.21.7 specifically, and it needs kernel source too so
that we can build modules in the field as needed.
I see you can make an rpm of a bootable kernel with make rpm.
Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all
of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all just dump the source in /usr/src, and
Yes, you put all the steps you do by hand into the .spec file. That's
it.
manually update symlinks as needed? If the latter, what symlinks need
to be updated?
Actually nowadays
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:05 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[]
Being rpm ignorant I do not know what the expected content of a kernel-source
RPM
are but this is the available targets for kernel packaging (from make help):
The kernel-source including all patches and configured as usually to be
to be any easier to automate, if that's what's
required.
Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all just dump the source in /usr/src, and
Yes, you put all the steps you do by hand into the .spec file. That's
it.
I may just stick them
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:11:21PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:05 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[]
Being rpm ignorant I do not know what the expected content of a
kernel-source RPM
are but this is the available targets for kernel packaging (from make help):
.
Is there a streamlined way of building a corresponding kernel-source
RPM? Or do people pretty much all just dump the source in /usr/src, and
Yes, you put all the steps you do by hand into the .spec file. That's
it.
I may just stick them in a bash script and forget about the RPM
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 10:31 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:09:26 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
I'm on a SuSE system.
I'm working on automating the install of said system, but it needs a
Linus kernel - 2.6.21.7 specifically, and it needs kernel source too so
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:51 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:11:21PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 19:05 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[]
Being rpm ignorant I do not know what the expected content of a
kernel-source RPM
are but this is
But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's which
contain
the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files, etc.) - including a
matching
.config and after `make oldconfig` - so that one can build out-of-tree
modules
after installing it with KSRC= (or whatever the
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:16 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's which
contain
the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files, etc.) - including a
matching
.config and after `make oldconfig` - so that one can build out-of-tree
On 12.09.2007 20:03, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 10:31 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:09:26 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
Fedora BTW abandoned kernel-source* and they have now a website with a
description
how to produce a configured kernel
Hi knurd.
I think the Fedora approach has many benefits -- I always wondered why
it never went upstream like a make install_develstuff that install all
the needed bits to
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build/
Last time I saw the patch is was to ugly to consider.
Now that is maybe a year ago and
On Sep 12 2007 20:23, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:16 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's
which contain the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files,
etc.) - including a matching .config and after `make
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Sep 12 2007 20:23, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:16 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
But we are talking[0] about a kernel-source-$VERSION.$ARCH.rpm's
which contain the kernel sources (read: lots of .c and .h files,
etc.) -
40 matches
Mail list logo
