DebianThis forum is for the discussion of Debian Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I am looking to upgrade my Kernel from 2.6.18 to 2.6.23 in my Debian Etch installation. I need to do this because it just seems like it's gonna be easier than patching version 18 with the MAC802.11 Subsystem.
Anyway to the point. I want to use the Debian Provided Kernel in Sid over just downloading one from Kernel.org, and though I haven't a problem with this, I am utterly confused by the packages available. I have, if I recall corectly, a Kernel-Source, Kernel-Image, and Kernel-Headers.
I belive I can "install" the Kernel-Source, and all that really does is download the new source to /usr/src (Again I am going from memory, I was dealing with this problem a month ago and just dropped it out of frustration)
I would then un-tar the thing and go about my merry way with configuring it. And use my original configuration files for any future software installation requireing the use of headers or the like.
But what I really don't get. is if this is the case. what is the point of a Kernel-Headers package for a kernel your going to download and configure yourself. and I have absolutely no clue what the Kernel-Image package is for.
I would really like some clarification of what these packages are for before I proceed. All I need is to have it done, and then two months later have massive issues because I did it wrong.
But what I really don't get. is if this is the case. what is the point of a Kernel-Headers package for a kernel your going to download and configure yourself. and I have absolutely no clue what the Kernel-Image package is for.
I would really like some clarification of what these packages are for before I proceed. All I need is to have it done, and then two months later have massive issues because I did it wrong.
Thanks for any assistance;
TeddyB
The kernel-image package is the binary version of the kernel. It has already been compiled and can be installed without you having to do a compile.
When you compile drivers and other modular additions to the kernel you need to make the kernel source available to the compile so that the new addition can compile against some of the names in the kernel source. The kernel-headers are a subset of the entire kernel source. The kernel-headers contain only those portions of the source that other routines might want to compile against. You don't need the kernel-headers for your own kernel compile but the kernel-headers come in handy if you are going to compile drivers against your new kernel.
So the Kernel-headers in this case only exist as headers for the pre-compiled Kernel-Image?
Also, Obviously it is better to compile the kernel yourself line by line to have the most effective and tailored Kernel for you system. But how "bad" would it be to use the pre-packaged binaries? Does it give you a serious disadvantage?
The problem is that the kernel is such an essential part of your system that upgrading it to Sid will drag in a bunch of upgrades to (equally essential) libraries and utilities. Once you do that, you really no longer have an Etch/Stable system. (And if you then comment out the Sid repos - which many people do - then you won't even get any updates to the kernel in the case of security patches or whatever.) As an alternative, you could add a line like this to your /etc/apt/sources.list
Code:
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
Then download the kernel source and compile it yourself. There are lots of good howto guides available for compiling a kernel in Debian. I like this one a lot http://technowizah.com/2005/12/debia...l-compile.html, but there are plenty of other good ones. The Debian sources come with Debian patches. You could also get the vanilla sources from http://www.kernel.org
So the Kernel-headers in this case only exist as headers for the pre-compiled Kernel-Image?
Also, Obviously it is better to compile the kernel yourself line by line to have the most effective and tailored Kernel for you system. But how "bad" would it be to use the pre-packaged binaries? Does it give you a serious disadvantage?
Thanks for your speedy reply, and time;
TeddyB
I have compiled my own kernel on occasion. The advantages to me were:
I got rid of initrd and thus boot sped up.
The kernel was smaller and took up less memory. On one computer I owned saving memory was important.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.