CFLAGS vs EXTRA_CFLAGS, Ubuntu server 9.04 error while running "make install"
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
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.
A whole host of new errors, but it still didn't work. Let's see:
incompatible pointer type
unknown field specified in initializer
'ethtool...' undeclared here (not in a function)
In function 'e100_probe'
implicit declaration of function
macro "INIT_WORK" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2
make[2]: *** [.../src/e100.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [_module_/.../src] Error 2
make: *** [default] Error 2
That's just an edited sample. There were a couple of pages worth.
I'm beginning to think that this hardware just isn't going to work on Server 9.04.
Unfortunately, it may be just that the driver was engineered to work on a narrow range of specific kernel releases, and has gone unmaintained for quite some time, and it just simply won't work on newer/other kernels.
As I mentioned way up in this thread, I have had similar experiences with Intel drivers. Fortunately for me, I only need ONE Intel driver, and an independant programmer has been doing a good job of keeping it up to date, albeit with long delays between releases.
Have you got your kernel sources, headers, etc. all installed on the system (like kernel-devel package and all that)?
Sorry, I don't know what else to suggest, other than maybe contacting Intel and see if they have anything to contribute to the situation.
Sources and headers are installed, and in every other respect it works just fine. For whatever reason (okay, it was probably money), it just hasn't been worth it for Intel to make a compatible driver and keep it up to date. Too bad, since it's a nice little machine.
Thanks for all your help. It's been a learning experience, and that always counts for something.
One last thought, having had an extra look at the entire thread:
You're trying to build the e100 driver, which to me means you have an Intel e100 type of interface on this machine.
Therefore, why wouldn't the e100 in-kernel driver work? Have you tried it? Or is this a different interface..?
A very logical thought, but the in-kernel didn't work from the beginning which is why I went hunting for a driver specifically designed for this hardware.
There are no PCI slots (or I'd just plug in a 3Com card), although there is a PCMCIA slot. I tried a couple of ancient cards I had on hand, but they weren't any good either. That didn't surprise me, but the lack of support for an Intel Pro/100 VE did.
I've loaded this machine 3 or 4 times, but I'm going to give it one more shot on Monday. I'll get a fresh download/disk and try, try again.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.