Carel Fellinger wrote: > Hai Robert Wilhelm, > > I think we have a communication problem here, so let's at both sides > try to be more explicit and maybe a little more informative:)
Thanks for your patience, Carel. > No, it is a three step process. > > 0) get the kernel source and apply all the necessary patches > 1a) configure the kernel > 1b) and compile the kernel > 1c) and build a deb file from it clearing the source tree as a side effect > 2a) use dpkg to install the above build deb file wich is stored in the > parent directory of the source tree > 2b) and use lilo to bring the MBR up to date > > dpkg is smart enough to propose lilo, so step 2a and 2b feel like one step. > Likewise make-kpkg is smart enough to combine 1b and 1c. But you can do all > the steps by hand if you feel particularly masochistic that is:) So there > is no need to use any debian specific tool, except for the fact that it makes > live *so* much more easier. Thats a nice and short explaination - thank you very much! I guess 2a includes make modules_install and mv's the system.map to the appropiate place? > > didn't know that, in fact I would rather keep the old way and not > > access the help of all these whisles and bells. Additionally, I have > > Be our guest, what ever suits you > > > As I previously stated, the image cannot be found in src/../boot/.. > > If you are using make-kpkg and subsequently dpkg -i ../some-kernel-package > then the kernel image is put in /boot. Most likely you don't have a /src, > i.e. a src dir in the / root dir, so src/../boot doesn't exist. Just have > a look in /boot. Sure, I do have a src tree, I wouldn't have been able to compile anything properly without one. Debian 2.2 creates one in /usr, in the end this makes up /usr/src. As far as I'm concerned most distributions and README's recommend to create a linux/ dir as a sub of src/ and I did so. In the end this makes up: /usr/src/linux/kernel-source-2.2.17/arch/i386/boot - after x-tar'ing the kernet-sourcexx.tar.gz. Usually you find a kernel image file in the above mentioned ..arch/i386/boot (not the /boot!) and exactly there is none. The impression I get now is - after reading your explaination - step 2a/b would not work without step b/c (dpkg -i ../some-kernel-package needs a *.deb file) which I would rather discribe as masochistic because I have to learn another new kernel-build process which relies only on Debian and cannot be used on other distributions. Likewise, my previous kernel-build process can be put into /dev/null because no one knows what exactly happens using dpkg and make-kpkg and is not able to tell where to find my kernel image file! Now that not what I would expect which I would discribe as the "linux spirit". After some years we all end up with distribution linux flavours with very less in common an a CEO in Redmond laughing at us. I can't believe it! > > and I would really like to understand why the current 2.2.17 kernel is > > a exe while my old 2.0.38 kernel is 'simple' binary file? > > Both are executable files, or actually compressed executable files. > I know you don't want to talk tools, but... How did you notice that > the two differ? Did you use the "file" command? Or less or... Actually only by ls -l, I only had a short look at the zImage file in ..src/../boot with the help of less. Robert
