From: Yann D. <yd...@al...> - 2000-10-11 22:42:50
|
Hi there, The precompiled 2.4.0-test9 kernel from the sourceforge works fine, but I have real problems with my self-compiled kernel. I suspect there are requirements wrt config options which my kernel did not met. Is there a centralized list of such requirements ? Is the .config file used for the precompiled kernel available somewhere ? Differences include: * using provided Debian image - "bad superblock" on boot, hence single-user mode. - init segfaults when I try to ping a second virtual host using the new ethernet support * using Tom's boot/root - mine cannot have MAC address configured: # ifconfig eth0 hw ether 0:0:10:0:0:1 0:0:10:0:0:1: Error 0 - precompiled refuses me to log in: console tomsrtbt login: root The default "root" password is "xxxx", edit /etc/passwd to change it, or edit settings.s to change it permanently... Password: ile rev.2.01 ile: unable to allocate pty/tty pair My .config file available on demand. [please CC me on followup] Best regards, -- Yann Dirson <yd...@al...> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? debian-email: <di...@de...> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2000-10-12 13:34:23
|
yd...@al... said: > The precompiled 2.4.0-test9 kernel from the sourceforge works fine, > but I have real problems with my self-compiled kernel. Sending in your .config would certainly help us reproduce the problems. Jeff |
From: Yann D. <yd...@al...> - 2000-10-12 17:23:29
Attachments:
.config
|
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:34:25AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > yd...@al... said: > > The precompiled 2.4.0-test9 kernel from the sourceforge works fine, > > but I have real problems with my self-compiled kernel. > > Sending in your .config would certainly help us reproduce the problems. Here it is. Regards, -- Yann Dirson <yd...@al...> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? debian-email: <di...@de...> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> |
From: Yann D. <yd...@al...> - 2000-10-13 00:19:41
|
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:34:25AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > yd...@al... said: > > The precompiled 2.4.0-test9 kernel from the sourceforge works fine, > > but I have real problems with my self-compiled kernel. Looks like the .config I sent is not the one that caused the problems. It is a modified version of the one that caused problems, and I had ommitted to "make clean" in between, which made me think this one broke as well. Just deselect support for devfs and the symptoms I described are back. I supposed that what really depends on devfs are the root_fs provided, not the kernel itself. But then Debian 2.2 is based on a 2.2 kernel without devfs, so if the provided Debian root_fs is not a hacked one I'm a bit lost... Regards, -- Yann Dirson <yd...@al...> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? debian-email: <di...@de...> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2000-10-13 13:17:16
|
yd...@al... said: > I supposed that what really depends on devfs are the root_fs provided, > not the kernel itself. But then Debian 2.2 is based on a 2.2 kernel > without devfs, so if the provided Debian root_fs is not a hacked one > I'm a bit lost... The devfs filesystem works with devfs. The main requirement are that the devices mentioned in fstab exist. So, if it mentions devfs devices, devfs had better be running. Jeff |
From: Yann D. <yd...@al...> - 2000-10-14 21:03:26
|
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 08:16:54AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > yd...@al... said: > > I supposed that what really depends on devfs are the root_fs provided, > > not the kernel itself. But then Debian 2.2 is based on a 2.2 kernel > > without devfs, so if the provided Debian root_fs is not a hacked one > > I'm a bit lost... > > The devfs filesystem works with devfs. The main requirement are that the > devices mentioned in fstab exist. So, if it mentions devfs devices, devfs had > better be running. I easily understand that :) However, I feel it is quite unexpected for a 2.2-based root_fr (as Debian 2.2 is, and as others still are I guess) to require a 2.4-specific feature. This could at least be mentionned on the "compiling" page, don't you think ? Thanks for your support ! -- Yann Dirson <yd...@al...> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? debian-email: <di...@de...> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2000-10-16 00:57:08
|
yd...@al... said: > This could at least be mentionned on the "compiling" page, don't you > think ? OK. What could I have put on the web site that would have prevented you from being confused? > However, I feel it is quite unexpected for a 2.2-based root_fr (as > Debian 2.2 is, and as others still are I guess) to require a > 2.4-specific feature. What's the difference between a 2.2 filesystem and a 2.4 filesystem? Not much. The devfs names in fstab are about it, and if you wanted to boot 2.4 without devfs, an existing 2.2 filesystem would probably work fine. Jeff |
From: Yann D. <yd...@al...> - 2000-10-16 17:19:38
|
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 09:03:36PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > yd...@al... said: > > This could at least be mentionned on the "compiling" page, don't you > > think ? > > OK. What could I have put on the web site that would have prevented you from > being confused? Something like "If you intend to use one of the root filesystems we provide, you will need to built a kernel with devfs support, as devfs-specific paths are referenced in those archives (in /etc/fstab)." Regards, -- Yann Dirson <yd...@al...> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? debian-email: <di...@de...> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> |