LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-14-2007, 02:12 PM   #16
wadsworth
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Distribution: Slackware64 13.37
Posts: 214

Rep: Reputation: 64

Just for grins, I built the 2.6.23.1 kernel and tried to compile a module (Truecrypt 4.3a).

Couldn't get the module to build.
Errors included "... Dm-target.c:659: error: too many arguments to function 'kmem_cache_create'"

Thanks to a clue in a posting about building Nvidia drivers for the 2.6.23.1 kernel:
http://support.zenwalk.org/index.php?topic=11803.0;wap2
I edited line 659 in Dm-target.c:
bio_ctx_cache = kmem_cache_create ("truecrypt-bioctx", sizeof (struct bio_ctx), 0, 0, NULL, NULL);
to read:
bio_ctx_cache = kmem_cache_create ("truecrypt-bioctx", sizeof (struct bio_ctx), 0, 0, NULL);

I was then able to successfully build/install/test Truecrypt.

Apparently the function kmem_cache_create has changed in the 2.6.23.x kernels.

I suspect agentc0re's problem is somehow related to this kmem_cache_create function.

P.S.
I still take CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT as the authority on the subject of "which kernel headers".
But I'm willing to accept that in most cases, either one will work.
And thanks to rworkman for responding to my question. Makes sense.

P.P.S.
The symlink /usr/src/linux doesn't need to be changed.
 
Old 11-14-2007, 05:06 PM   #17
BCarey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,453

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentc0re View Post
From what i can tell those DIR's are reflections of my /usr/src/XXX
i have the new source in there and followed
from Kernel Compile Guide

should i not be changing the symlink to the new source?
Sorry, I thought that was a listing of /usr/include. I actually don't think the symlink in /usr/src matters at all.


Brian
 
Old 11-15-2007, 02:03 AM   #18
duryodhan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Distribution: Slackware 12 Kernel 2.6.24 - probably upgraded by now
Posts: 1,054

Rep: Reputation: 46
In an ideal world it shouldn't matter , the /usr/src symlink as no one uses it. But some idiotic programs I have found , look to the /usr/src for source of current kernel instead of "/usr/src/'uname-r'/source ". If you really start with kernel tweaking etc., you will soon have around 5-6 versions of kernel on your comp ... you can't keep changing the symlink everytime. Change it only if some stupid program asks. I deleted the symlink btw.
 
Old 11-15-2007, 04:56 AM   #19
pappy_mcfae
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Distribution: Gentoo x86 & x86_64
Posts: 190

Rep: Reputation: 30
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentc0re View Post
I have compiled 2.6.23.1, do i need to download 2.6.23.1 headers and modules pkg from slackware packages?
You can do that, since at present the "current" version of Slackware includes kernel version 2.6.23.1...something I personally question.

However, if you are planning on supporting wireless networking, steer clear of 2.6.23.x. That particular kernel is problematic with certain programs, like FUSE, ndiswrapper, and some others. I'd recommend going with kernel version 2.6.22.12, the newest kernel available at kernel.org.

The other question is when ever you decide to recompile the latestest and greatest kernel do you need to upgrade your headers and modules? do the /lib/modules/*** dir get updated durring the compile process or is that something that is upkept by pat and thats why it's in slack packages? I just made a vmware server at work using slack and first thing i did was upgrade it to 2.6.23.1 so im just also trying to figure out if i'll need to add the new headers & modules pkg to that box as well.[/QUOTE]

As far as setting up your headers, all you need to do is go to the directory where your kernel source code is...(usually /usr/src/linux-2.6.xx.xx) and type "make headers_install". I have done it every time I have updated my kernel.

My take on it is they wouldn't have included the header files in the kernel without a reason. If you update your headers with every kernel compilation, you won't have to worry that one of them might be out of date.

Of course, I am not an expert. All I know is I always update the header files. That way I know that anything I compile that needs to be specifically compiled against my custom kernel will at least have the right headers to work with.

Blessed be!
Pappy
 
Old 11-15-2007, 09:33 AM   #20
rworkman
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,912

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
However, if you are planning on supporting wireless networking, steer clear of 2.6.23.x. That particular kernel is problematic with certain programs, like FUSE, ndiswrapper, and some others.
I've built both of those on -current, and in fact, I use fuse (sshfs) every day.

Quote:
The other question is when ever you decide to recompile the latestest and greatest kernel do you need to upgrade your headers and modules? do the /lib/modules/*** dir get updated durring the compile process or is that something that is upkept by pat and thats why it's in slack packages?
If you're talking about a custom kernel that you compile yourself, the "make modules_install" run first does "rm -rf /lib/modules/<kernelversion>" and then repopulates it with the modules specific to that kernel.

Quote:
As far as setting up your headers, all you need to do is go to the directory where your kernel source code is...(usually /usr/src/linux-2.6.xx.xx) and type "make headers_install". I have done it every time I have updated my kernel.

My take on it is they wouldn't have included the header files in the kernel without a reason. If you update your headers with every kernel compilation, you won't have to worry that one of them might be out of date.

Of course, I am not an expert. All I know is I always update the header files. That way I know that anything I compile that needs to be specifically compiled against my custom kernel will at least have the right headers to work with.
No, no, no. Don't update the kernel-headers on the installed system unless you plan to recompile glibc against those headers, and users should not be recompiling glibc. I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's obvious that you don't understand the implications of what you're doing in this case, so please trust those who do.

Please, read this post: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...11#post2872221
and this one (which is linked from the first): http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...07.3/0587.html

Last edited by rworkman; 11-15-2007 at 09:35 AM.
 
Old 11-16-2007, 05:18 AM   #21
pappy_mcfae
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Distribution: Gentoo x86 & x86_64
Posts: 190

Rep: Reputation: 30
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rworkman View Post
I've built both of those on -current, and in fact, I use fuse (sshfs) every day.
So do I...but now it's compiled into my kernel as a module. I upgraded to 2.6.23 the day it came out. Ndiswrapper didn't support that version, nor did FUSE (as in the package, not what ships with the kernels...I had yet to discover that FUSE is a part of the kernel package).

Since then, ndiswrapper cranked out two new versions, and perhaps FUSE also put out a version that would compile with 2.6.23.x. Once I became aware that FUSE could be compiled into the kernel, my FUSE worries flew out the door...as did my need to go to the FUSE site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rworkman View Post
If you're talking about a custom kernel that you compile yourself, the "make modules_install" run first does "rm -rf /lib/modules/<kernelversion>" and then repopulates it with the modules specific to that kernel.
I know...I have been using that command since the first time I compiled a kernel of my own from the 2.6.18 experimental source on the Slackware 11 DVD. I think the fact that my machines run on the kernels I have compiled for them says I have done something right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rworkman View Post
No, no, no. Don't update the kernel-headers on the installed system unless you plan to recompile glibc against those headers, and users should not be recompiling glibc. I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's obvious that you don't understand the implications of what you're doing in this case, so please trust those who do.
I freely admit I don't know all there is to know. However, I know that ndiswrapper likes to have the proper headers for your kernel version...at least it has up to version 1.47. I just recently tried ndiswrapper version 1.49. If I didn't use that particular program, maybe I wouldn't have to bother installing new headers.

I appreciate what you are saying...however, I know that all I have to do to get back my original headers is to stick in the Slack-12 DVD, and installpkg everything in /slackware/k. Not a problem.

Why shouldn't users recompile their glibc? Not that I want to do that, but is it such a harrowing feat?

From what I have seen, and from my experience, if things really go awry, you can reinstall the broken packages, or reinstall it all. Either way, it's no biggie!

What do I have to lose anyway? The writing I do can be done on either the Linux side, or the Windoze side...like now. My business database is built from Office 2000's version of Access. So far, attempts to modify it to work under kexi have proved fruitless. Also, Linux has yet to have an audio mix program that doesn't suck.

I get into Linux because it holds a thrill for my inner geek. It's the same kind of thrill I got when I fried vacuum tubes with a neon light transformer that kicked out in the area of 20kv. The only thing is, computers are a lot less messy than broken tubes, and they are considerably lighter than a 20kv transformer. Computers are safer, too.

So, if I break the Linux side of life, no harm, no foul! I save all my writing projects on either my NTFS or FAT partitions.

Besides, I have always been a bit of a seat of the pants kind of person. I ain't afraid of no ghosts...in the machines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rworkman View Post
Please, read this post: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...11#post2872221
and this one (which is linked from the first): http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...07.3/0587.html
I did read it. I understand it, but again I say Linux is a hobby...a way of honing and maintaining my computer skills. Broken Linux means I have to figure out why it's broken...that's a good thing.

I don't get off on installing operating systems, but sometimes it's a good thing to wipe the slate clean and start all over again. Besides, with every install, I gain more experience, and do a better job than I did the last time. It's a win-win if you ask me.

I respect what you say. I will keep an eye out for problems that might arise, and I'll be sure I keep my pristine Slack12 install disk handy and ready for action...just in case.

Well, this missive is getting too long, so I'll cut it short by saying that your words should definitely be heeded by those who can't afford to blow their Linux install skyward. However, since I now know what might happen, I am better informed if weird things start to happen to my systems. That might be one less question I have to ask.

Oh, and don't worry about the condescension thing. I do a fair bit myself. Not here, mind you, but I have definitely thrown a bit of condescension in my time. No problem.

I'd say from all I have read that bears your name, you have earned the right to condescend!

Blessed be!
Pappy
 
Old 11-16-2007, 08:49 AM   #22
duryodhan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Distribution: Slackware 12 Kernel 2.6.24 - probably upgraded by now
Posts: 1,054

Rep: Reputation: 46
I think Robby was worried about you saying this :
Quote:
As far as setting up your headers, all you need to do is go to the directory where your kernel source code is...(usually /usr/src/linux-2.6.xx.xx) and type "make headers_install". I have done it every time I have updated my kernel.


Other than that , make header_install is CERTAINLY not needed, in ANY kernel upgrade. If you are doing it , please stop... why lengthen the amount of time it takes to go to a new kernel
 
Old 11-16-2007, 09:28 AM   #23
BCarey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,453

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
pappy_mcfae,
It's your system, break it as you wish. I think people are concerned about your giving wrong advice to people who are not so interested in breaking things. It would have been good to add the disclaimer to your statement "I know this is the wrong way to do it, but what I do is..."

Quote:
However, I know that ndiswrapper likes to have the proper headers for your kernel version...at least it has up to version 1.47.
...and this is not true, either. I have been compiling ndiswrapper against the correct headers (correct means they match glibc, not the running kernel) for many Slack versions now without problem. I modify my kernel (upgrade or reconfigure) with some regularity but have never upgraded my kernel-headers (except obviously when upgrading Slack). Since you freely admit your system is broken, perhaps that's why you have had problems with ndiswrapper.

As you said, there is no harm if you break your own system. On the other hand, if someone else follows your incorrect advice and breaks their system, there is some harm done.


Brian
 
Old 11-16-2007, 11:39 AM   #24
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
I freely admit I don't know all there is to know. However, I know that ndiswrapper likes to have the proper headers for your kernel version...at least it has up to version 1.47. I just recently tried ndiswrapper version 1.49. If I didn't use that particular program, maybe I wouldn't have to bother installing new headers.

I appreciate what you are saying...however, I know that all I have to do to get back my original headers is to stick in the Slack-12 DVD, and installpkg everything in /slackware/k. Not a problem.
Dude, there is no wiggle room to argue on this. This is straight from Linus, himself. If you want to argue about something said by the man who started Linux then take it up on LKML where people can laugh at you properly. Don't confuse the newbies here. Do not mess with the headers in /usr/include/linux unless you've just updated glibc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
Why shouldn't users recompile their glibc? Not that I want to do that, but is it such a harrowing feat?
1. The benefits are next to nothing, so it's a major timewaste.
2. The new version may well be slightly incompatible with the old, causing system-wide breakage that you may not notice or attribute to glibc at first.
3. It's incredibly easy to screw this up.
4. That you didn't know about the kernel-headers issue pretty much says you're messing with forces beyond your reckoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
From what I have seen, and from my experience, if things really go awry, you can reinstall the broken packages, or reinstall it all. Either way, it's no biggie!
It's a "biggie" if you find out the hard way six months down the road that everything you've replaced since then now has a problem with threads being unstable, text localization failures, or memory leaks. Practically everything links to glibc, so anything you do wrong there can indeed affect the entire system in ways you will not understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
What do I have to lose anyway? The writing I do can be done on either the Linux side, or the Windoze side...like now. My business database is built from Office 2000's version of Access. So far, attempts to modify it to work under kexi have proved fruitless. Also, Linux has yet to have an audio mix program that doesn't suck.

I get into Linux because it holds a thrill for my inner geek. It's the same kind of thrill I got when I fried vacuum tubes with a neon light transformer that kicked out in the area of 20kv. The only thing is, computers are a lot less messy than broken tubes, and they are considerably lighter than a 20kv transformer. Computers are safer, too.

So, if I break the Linux side of life, no harm, no foul! I save all my writing projects on either my NTFS or FAT partitions.
If you like living recklessly, then please don't spread your decision-making criteria 'round the news who may or may not know what kind of obscure and impossible-to-solve problems they may be setting themselves up for.
 
Old 11-17-2007, 02:28 AM   #25
pappy_mcfae
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Distribution: Gentoo x86 & x86_64
Posts: 190

Rep: Reputation: 30
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar View Post
Dude, there is no wiggle room to argue on this. This is straight from Linus, himself. If you want to argue about something said by the man who started Linux then take it up on LKML where people can laugh at you properly. Don't confuse the newbies here. Do not mess with the headers in /usr/include/linux unless you've just updated glibc.
Who's arguing? I'm agreeing. Like it or not, I can reinstall the original headers that came with Slack-12 at any time. That will bring my supposedly broken system back on line. For you to say anything different is ludicrous.

But you know, for being broken, my systems do everything I want them to, including running the version of compiz that comes with Slack-12. Considering some of the horror stories I read here, I'd say I am well ahead of the curve on that particular issue.

Confusing newbies? I don't see how saying that it's my experience that x happens when I do y can be confusing. There are, and there remain, a myriad of methods for removing the epidermal layer of a feline. And when everyone on hand who does know I am wrong comes down on me, wherein lies the possibility for confusion? Pappy's words: bad, guru's words: good. It sure looks simple to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar View Post
1. The benefits are next to nothing, so it's a major timewaste.
2. The new version may well be slightly incompatible with the old, causing system-wide breakage that you may not notice or attribute to glibc at first.
3. It's incredibly easy to screw this up.
4. That you didn't know about the kernel-headers issue pretty much says you're messing with forces beyond your reckoning.
DUDE, what an arrogant load of BS! "forces beyond your reckoning"...whatever. Dude, it's a damned computer operating system. It's not God! It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is billions of ones and zeroes put together in a way that a chip of silicon can interface with a human being. A computer is a collection of gates and flip-flops. It's not going to explode if you do something wrong to it...well, unless it's a Dell laptop with the fire emitting batteries.

I am not going to recompile my glibc. I have no reason to. My systems work as well as I would expect them to. Even if I did, it would be no skin off the nose of anyone here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar View Post
It's a "biggie" if you find out the hard way six months down the road that everything you've replaced since then now has a problem with threads being unstable, text localization failures, or memory leaks. Practically everything links to glibc, so anything you do wrong there can indeed affect the entire system in ways you will not understand.
And if that happens, you know what I'll do, I'll reinstall Slackware 12, or perhaps Slack 13 will be out, and I can just skip messing with an upgrade and install it.

And how dare you presume what I do or don't know about computers. I was working as a tech installing DOS and Windows 3.11 when Linux came out. I played with it as much as I played with OS/2, Novell, and Windoze NT 3.51. I have personally destroyed these systems just to find out how other folks get the job done. Once I know how they get broken, I know how to fix them.

So, you could say I still ain't afraid of no ghosts...in the machine! Too bad you can't seem to say the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar View Post
If you like living recklessly, then please don't spread your decision-making criteria 'round the news who may or may not know what kind of obscure and impossible-to-solve problems they may be setting themselves up for.
You just don't get it, do you? Say it with me, "It's only an operating system, it's only an operating system, it's only an operating system."

I am still amazed at how bent out of shape some people get over this. I always preface my advice by saying I am no expert. Do I have to put it in big neon letters?

For all the supposed bad things I have done to my computers, and for all the dire warnings and tales of coming woe, my computers still sit here running. Even now, I am watching screen savers (polygons) on two machines, and I am typing on the third one. All three of these machines are running Slackware 12. Two are running with kernel version 2.6.22.12, and one with 2.6.23.1. Two out of three are successfully running compiz, and it would be an act of futility to put it on the third (PII 450MHz), but I might just to say I did it.

So, in order to shut everyone up, it's a BAD IDEA to type "make headers_install". It can make bad things happen.

There, now can we talk about something else, si vous plez?

Blessed be!
Pappy
 
Old 11-17-2007, 02:46 AM   #26
pappy_mcfae
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Distribution: Gentoo x86 & x86_64
Posts: 190

Rep: Reputation: 30
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCarey View Post
pappy_mcfae,
It's your system, break it as you wish. I think people are concerned about your giving wrong advice to people who are not so interested in breaking things. It would have been good to add the disclaimer to your statement "I know this is the wrong way to do it, but what I do is..."
Every time I give advice, I say that it's what made my system work. I also say I am no expert. Beyond that, there isn't much else I can do. I'm pretty sure that if I can read a thread, and separate the wheat from the chaff, others can do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCarey View Post
...and this is not true, either. I have been compiling ndiswrapper against the correct headers (correct means they match glibc, not the running kernel) for many Slack versions now without problem. I modify my kernel (upgrade or reconfigure) with some regularity but have never upgraded my kernel-headers (except obviously when upgrading Slack). Since you freely admit your system is broken, perhaps that's why you have had problems with ndiswrapper.
Isn't true? You know this because you were standing over me the first time I tried to compile ndiswrapper and it refused because the headers didn't match my kernel? I solved a problem I had by installing the header files. As far as I am concerned, the problem is solved until it can be proved otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCarey View Post
As you said, there is no harm if you break your own system. On the other hand, if someone else follows your incorrect advice and breaks their system, there is some harm done.

Brian
Do you think a newbie perusing this thread is going to actually type "make headers_install" after reading the thrashing I have received for daring to say I did? I sure don't.

Blessed be!
Pappy
 
Old 11-17-2007, 09:18 AM   #27
BCarey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,453

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
Isn't true? You know this because you were standing over me the first time I tried to compile ndiswrapper and it refused because the headers didn't match my kernel?
I have no idea what experience you have on your obviously borked system, but your statement "I know that ndiswrapper likes to have the proper headers for your kernel version" is false.

Brian
 
Old 11-17-2007, 10:32 AM   #28
duryodhan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Distribution: Slackware 12 Kernel 2.6.24 - probably upgraded by now
Posts: 1,054

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
"make headers_install" after reading the thrashing I have received for daring to say I did?
exactly. So , if you hadn't received it ... then probably some noob would have done it.. thats all we are concerned about.

Lets say you said make headers_install , and before robby/me/ anyone else said anything the noob read it and did that . Thats what we don't want happening.

You are probably better off saying it in some sort of text akin to "Big Neon Letters" ,
Quote:
this *might* screw up your system, do this only if you don't mind tinkering /reinstall of your system and have backup of data.
say that in big clear writing , then no problem with me atleast.

Anyways this thread is getting boring , unnecessary and away from the point... can some admin/moderator come and stop this berating?
 
Old 11-18-2007, 03:16 AM   #29
pappy_mcfae
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Distribution: Gentoo x86 & x86_64
Posts: 190

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by duryodhan View Post
Anyways this thread is getting boring , unnecessary and away from the point... can some admin/moderator come and stop this berating?
And childish. Insulting my system which is "obviously borked"? Whatever.

Blessed be!
Pappy
 
Old 11-18-2007, 12:07 PM   #30
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
Who's arguing? I'm agreeing. Like it or not, I can reinstall the original headers that came with Slack-12 at any time. That will bring my supposedly broken system back on line. For you to say anything different is ludicrous.
No, for me to say anything different is accurate. Anything you've built that may have in some way read the incorrect headers while they were installed should be considered suspect. Simply correcting the headers will not alter the questionable binaries you've created while they were there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
But you know, for being broken, my systems do everything I want them to, including running the version of compiz that comes with Slack-12. Considering some of the horror stories I read here, I'd say I am well ahead of the curve on that particular issue.
Driving down a highway, just because you haven't pushed the brake pedal yet doesn't necessarily mean the brakes work. You've got a huge gap in your logic if you're assuming everything's fine just because you haven't seen it malfunction yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
Confusing newbies? I don't see how saying that it's my experience that x happens when I do y can be confusing. There are, and there remain, a myriad of methods for removing the epidermal layer of a feline. And when everyone on hand who does know I am wrong comes down on me, wherein lies the possibility for confusion? Pappy's words: bad, guru's words: good. It sure looks simple to me.
Yes, it's confusing the newbies when someone says "Well, I did highly inadvisable thing x and nothing's happened to me yet".

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
DUDE, what an arrogant load of BS! "forces beyond your reckoning"...whatever. Dude, it's a damned computer operating system. It's not God! It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is billions of ones and zeroes put together in a way that a chip of silicon can interface with a human being. A computer is a collection of gates and flip-flops. It's not going to explode if you do something wrong to it...well, unless it's a Dell laptop with the fire emitting batteries.
Fact: You were doing something you should not have been doing. Fact: You're still acting like you did nothing wrong based on the assertion that you didn't notice anything wrong. Fact: The guy who wrote the operating system has spoken about this so many times it's a wonder he doesn't go postal about it. Fact: You jumped into a thread where someone was asking a question about kernel headers with bad advice. How about you save the drama for yo' mama. You're very fond of alliteration yourself, but you're going ballistic when someone else uses a colorful turn of phrase and the facts show you were operating out of your depth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
I am not going to recompile my glibc. I have no reason to. My systems work as well as I would expect them to. Even if I did, it would be no skin off the nose of anyone here.
Good for you for not doing unnecessary omgoptimizations. Now stop acting like you weren't the one who brought up the subject of compiling glibc so you can act put upon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
And how dare you presume what I do or don't know about computers. I was working as a tech installing DOS and Windows 3.11 when Linux came out. I played with it as much as I played with OS/2, Novell, and Windoze NT 3.51. I have personally destroyed these systems just to find out how other folks get the job done. Once I know how they get broken, I know how to fix them.
Guess what. When WfWG 3.11 came out, I uninstalled Windows and switched to using Linux full time. So, what's your excuse for not knowing this about the kernel headers now? Don't act like you shouldn't have to tolerate anyone ever telling you you're wrong about something just because you've been using computers for a long time. This is the Internet--someone else on it has been using them for longer, guaranteed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
So, you could say I still ain't afraid of no ghosts...in the machine! Too bad you can't seem to say the same thing.
...and you should leave off the ad-hominem attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
You just don't get it, do you? Say it with me, "It's only an operating system, it's only an operating system, it's only an operating system."

I am still amazed at how bent out of shape some people get over this. I always preface my advice by saying I am no expert. Do I have to put it in big neon letters?
No, but perhaps a moderator will be happy to step in and put a stop to your pointless histrionics. You're the one getting bent out of shape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
For all the supposed bad things I have done to my computers, and for all the dire warnings and tales of coming woe, my computers still sit here running. Even now, I am watching screen savers (polygons) on two machines, and I am typing on the third one. All three of these machines are running Slackware 12. Two are running with kernel version 2.6.22.12, and one with 2.6.23.1. Two out of three are successfully running compiz, and it would be an act of futility to put it on the third (PII 450MHz), but I might just to say I did it.
So what. Again, the things that go wrong from incorrect structs being defined due to broken kernel headers are incredibly subtle and may or may not immediately be noticeable. If you were actually listening to what we're telling you, you would not attempt to cite three machines doing mostly nothing as any kind of proof there's nothing wrong. Pound a few million connections a day through an array of web, mail, and DNS servers for a week or three, and then maybe you'll have something approaching a use case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappy_mcfae View Post
So, in order to shut everyone up, it's a BAD IDEA to type "make headers_install". It can make bad things happen.

There, now can we talk about something else, si vous plez?

Blessed be!
Pappy
Not if you're going to act like that.
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
advice


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pkg-config can't find installed package JAKK Slackware 16 08-11-2008 09:07 AM
compiling slackware pkg from source jadukor Slackware 4 07-10-2006 07:48 PM
Errors Compiling Kernel 2.6 on Slackware 10.2 - Old kernel headers required? Dave S. Slackware 8 03-04-2006 12:15 AM
Installing a *.pkg.tar Package CrackerStealth Slackware 3 12-27-2005 03:47 PM
No sound modules after compiling kernel-2.6.11.11 on Slackware 10.1 Basel Slackware 11 06-17-2005 04:38 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration