DISCUSSION: Compiling kernel 2.6.10 on a Slackware 10.1
LinuxAnswers DiscussionThis forum is to discuss articles posted to LinuxAnswers.
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.
everthing looks good
but i think it will be a good point to specify here
"3. Also, since I've formatted my disks using ReiserFS, I also want to be sure that at boot time the Kernel is able to read from them. To do so, under File systems I enable Reiserfs support <*>.
that nomatter what FS u use u neecxd to have ext2 Filesystem support in ur kernel
since this is required while booting
also why are u using "-j5" in the make bzImge command
Hey, just read your article to see how similar your experience was to mine.
One comment:
You say to delete the /usr/src/linux symlink and replace it with one pointing to the new source. This is BAD!! According to linus /usr/src/linux should point to the kernel headers that glibc was compiled against, not those of the running kernel.
Programs will still link (or whatever) to the right headers because they will use uname -r to find the right directory, i.e.:
Hi,
Thanks for your guide. One thing that I really didn't understand is why do we need /sys? What if I'll not make this dir? Will my kernel not work? What is the use of this dir?
Originally posted by Komakino
This is BAD!! According to linus /usr/src/linux should point to the kernel headers that glibc was compiled against, not those of the running kernel.
Programs will still link (or whatever) to the right headers because they will use uname -r to find the right directory, i.e.:
Code:
cd /usr/src/`uname -r`/
i guess no real harm done then...
but this is still strange to me, 95% of all users compiling kernel DO use this method. there are metropolitan legends about this symlink... i guess it's the most discussed symlink ever
Originally posted by hameedkhan
Hi,
Thanks for your guide. One thing that I really didn't understand is why do we need /sys? What if I'll not make this dir? Will my kernel not work? What is the use of this dir?
Thanks,
Hameed U. Khan
Starting with kernel 2.6 there's a new /sys directory for Plug and Play configuration. upgrading from previous versions of the kernel, you might therefore not have it there.
I've just built 2.6.11.7 using a similar method, reiserfs, SATA and all (we have very similar setups).
I'm running an AMD64 3500+ (on an nVidiva nForce 3-based motherboard) and recently tried to install an app that was designed for x86_64, which is my system, right?
For some reason the program (nVidia motherboard drivers) reports that this is really a 32 bit kernel. Did I forget to check something off when I built it, or should I have built a different target (like `make bzImage x86_64` or something)?
this was cool...............
i upgraded my slack box from 2.4.29 to 2.6.11.8 .............
add that 1 more step in the end...................removing the old kernel when the new one fires up
Originally posted by r_x this was cool...............
i upgraded my slack box from 2.4.29 to 2.6.11.8 .............
add that 1 more step in the end...................removing the old kernel when the new one fires up
yes u can do that but i personlly do not recommend that
ther is not harm in keeping a kernel or 2 extra in stock,in case u find on later that u have something missing u can just boot in the other kernel and check there
This is a great guild for Slackware newbies , I have a question though : if I took the optional steps which remove all the symbolic links
linking to the old kernel , and then link them to the new one , does it
still make sense to make an entry for the old kernel when configuring LILO ?
Once again , great work and it's much appreciated .
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.