On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:58:59 -0400 "John P. Burkett" wrote - > Thank you, David. > > David Fellows wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:55:15 -0400 > > "John P. Burkett" wrote - > >> Drake Donahue wrote: > >>> Burkett asked: > >>> > > > > 2) find someone who still has the top level Makefile from 2.6.22-r2 who wil > l > > send it to you. And hope that that is all you are missing. > This appears to be the easiest short term solution. In looking for the > top level Makefile from 2.6.22-r2, do I need to specify that it is to be > used on an amd64 machine or should I expect that any such file might > work on amd64 architecture?
The Makefile should be architecture independent. I guess you can download one of the 2.6.22 series of kerenl sources from http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ unpack it somewhere and copy the Makefile. There is a sequence of 2.6.22 kernels starting with 2.6.22 and proceeding 2.6.22.1, 2.6.22.2, ... Which one of those correspods most closely to gentoo 2.6.22-r2 I don't know. Obviously those that come after the date (uname -a) that your kerenl was built are not of interest. Hmm. Just looked at my own Makefile again. It begins: VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 6 SUBLEVEL = 27 EXTRAVERSION = -gentoo-r8 NAME = Rotary Wombat my uname -a gives Linux kanga 2.6.27-gentoo-r8 ...... It is remotely possible that the driver install is just using the Makefile for the version info to compare it against the currently running kernel version. in which case you could try creating a Makefile that just contains the first four lines above that match your kerenl version. Probably you would drop the -osmp since that is "EXTRAEXTRAVERSION". The NAME value is likely irrelevant. It would be easy to try. And should do no harm if it fails. But you are using chewing gum and baling wire to fix this. Dave F
