On 12/30/2009 1:11 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
My x86-64 Architectural Programmers Manuals are packed away somewhere so I'll
have to wing it here only stating what I know to be factual.
1. The original eight 32 bit x86 GPRs were increased in width to 64 bits
2. Eight additional 64 bit GPRs were
Rerunning lilo did fix it. Time was that the postintall checked lilo.conf and
ran as a matter of course. At least let me say "no" if I happen to prefer
grub.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.deb
On 2009-12-30 at 08:45:14 -0500, David Baron wrote:
> Probably is because I do not know what is safe to set to "no". These are
> basically stock kernels with whatever would have been in the initrd compiled
> in instead. The debs are full of modules, most of which simply take up space.
Why is it
Mark Allums put forth on 12/30/2009 12:04 PM:
> I've only done custom kernels on 32bit x86 headless server
>>> platforms, so maybe mine would double in size if I were doing X86-84
>>> kernels due to 8 byte instruction words vs 4 byte words,
>
> I expect that this is merely terminology, but I don't
I've only done custom kernels on 32bit x86 headless server
platforms, so maybe mine would double in size if I were doing X86-84
kernels due to 8 byte instruction words vs 4 byte words,
I expect that this is merely terminology, but I don't think that 64-bit
x86_64/amd64 architecture exactly has
David Baron writes:
> Probably is because I do not know what is safe to set to "no". These
> are basically stock kernels with whatever would have been in the
> initrd compiled in instead.
Then why not use the initrd?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.o
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 23:21:21 debian-user-digest-
requ...@lists.debian.org wrote:
> 12.2 MB vs 12.5 MB? "much much smaller"? Why do you consider 300 KB to be
> "much much smaller"?
>
> My kernel.deb is 1.5 MB and my vmlinuz is 1.2 MB. That is "much much
> smaller". ;) I've only done cus
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:54:36 -0600
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> David Baron put forth on 12/29/2009 10:35 AM:
>
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12781374 Oct 29 18:11 /usr/src/linux-image-2.6.31-
> > davidb_2.6.31-davidb-10.00.Custom_i386.deb
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12785544 Nov 16 22:14 /usr/src/linux-i
David Baron put forth on 12/29/2009 10:35 AM:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12781374 Oct 29 18:11 /usr/src/linux-image-2.6.31-
> davidb_2.6.31-davidb-10.00.Custom_i386.deb
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12785544 Nov 16 22:14 /usr/src/linux-image-2.6.31-
> davidb-svn14611_2.6.31-davidb-svn14611-10.00.Custom_i
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 19:14:39 Dave Witbrodt wrote:
> >> Just out of curiosity, what's the size of your kernel image file? I
> >> also use lilo and no initrd. I'm using 2.6.31.1 with Lenny and have not
> >> run into any boot problems yet.
> >
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12781374 Oct 29 18:11
Just out of curiosity, what's the size of your kernel image file? I also
use lilo and no initrd. I'm using 2.6.31.1 with Lenny and have not run
into any boot problems yet.
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12781374 Oct 29 18:11 /usr/src/linux-image-2.6.31-
davidb_2.6.31-davidb-10.00.Custom_i386.deb
-rw
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 18:12:37 debian-user-digest-
requ...@lists.debian.org wrote:
> > Built kernel 2.6.32.3. Get 2.6.32EBDA too big, overlaps lilo 2nd stage
> > image or something like that. This is a non-initrd kernel.
> >
> > Do I have to go back to an initrd (stopped using it because of
David Baron put forth on 12/29/2009 7:47 AM:
> Built kernel 2.6.32.3. Get 2.6.32EBDA too big, overlaps lilo 2nd stage image
> or something like that. This is a non-initrd kernel.
>
> Do I have to go back to an initrd (stopped using it because of all those
> yaird
> problems)?
>
> Or is there a
13 matches
Mail list logo
