Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Ryan Sims]

On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
> Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one has
> tried to answer my question yet.

In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config
and genkernel's config.  How did that turn out?


-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote:

> > I have seen horrible, horrible kernels created by it.
>
> Did they work?

no. they did not even boot.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Steen Eugen Poulsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 474 bytes --]

Volker Armin Hemmann skrev:
> because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by 
> genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the 
> change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really 
> make things easier, does it?


Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel.

Your outright lying.

If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to
stop saying anything.




[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3412 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Ryan Sims]

On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <sep@lix-world.net> wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann skrev:
> > because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel created by
> > genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, the
> > change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really
> > make things easier, does it?
>
>
> Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel.
>
> Your outright lying.
>
> If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to
> stop saying anything.

Ok, let's all just take a deep breath, chill out and get back on-topic.

Clearly there are differing opinions/experiences about genkernel.  We
needn't get into a "religious" war on either side; I have a certain
way I apporach kernel building that makes me avoid genkernel, that's
my choice.  There are those who like what genkernel does, that's their
choice.

I've made the argument that a non-genkernel config is less complicated
than a genkernel config, and I think that's a supportable position.
I've also argued that the OP should think about hand-configuring from
scratch, as it reduces the number of variables to troubleshoot.

I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is
just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this
particular case (Volker please correct me if I'm wrong), which is a
valid point.  And it isn't "FUD" or "lies" to warn about having bad
experiences with a tool in the past.  If there are issues with my
tone, or anyone else's tone, please say just that, rather than adding
fuel to the fire.

Ultimately, we're talking about whether or not to use a tool, and how
to use that tool.  No-one's going to live or die here: righteous anger
and name-calling isn't appropriate.  So again:  take a deep breath,
and let's try and help out a fellow gentoo-user instead of attacking
each other.

-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Ryan Sims wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <sep@lix-world.net> wrote:
> > Volker Armin Hemmann skrev:
> > > because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel
> > > created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked
> > > in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future.
> > > Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it?
> >
> > Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel.
> >
> > Your outright lying.
> >
> > If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to
> > stop saying anything.
>
> Ok, let's all just take a deep breath, chill out and get back on-topic.
>
> Clearly there are differing opinions/experiences about genkernel.  We
> needn't get into a "religious" war on either side; I have a certain
> way I apporach kernel building that makes me avoid genkernel, that's
> my choice.  There are those who like what genkernel does, that's their
> choice.
>
> I've made the argument that a non-genkernel config is less complicated
> than a genkernel config, and I think that's a supportable position.
> I've also argued that the OP should think about hand-configuring from
> scratch, as it reduces the number of variables to troubleshoot.
>
> I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is
> just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this
> particular case (Volker please correct me if I'm wrong), which is a
> valid point.  

well, in all cases ...

> And it isn't "FUD" or "lies" to warn about having bad 
> experiences with a tool in the past.  

exactly. 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Arnau Bria]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400
Ryan Sims wrote:

> On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
Hi,
> > Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one
> > has tried to answer my question yet.
> 
> In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config
> and genkernel's config.  How did that turn out?

Mmm... I though I answered that.
at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12
genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new
2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir).

So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig,
and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I
mean, what differneces could be between them? does genekenrel something
differnet to make oldconfig?¿

I must reboot my server for checking it, but I cannot do it now... I'll
come back with the diff ASAP.

Cheers,
Arnau
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Ryan Sims]

On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400
> Ryan Sims wrote:
>
> > On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> > > Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one
> > > has tried to answer my question yet.
> >
> > In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config
> > and genkernel's config.  How did that turn out?
>
> Mmm... I though I answered that.
> at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12
> genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new
> 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir).
>
> So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig,
> and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I
> mean, what differneces could be between them?

That's what we're trying to find out.  If the diff comes up empty,
we'll have to look elsewhere, but it's easy to check.

One thing...are you actually going from 2.6.12 to .21?  Or is that a typo?

While you're rebooting, see if you can get your new kernel to panic
again at boot, write down the error, and post it.

-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Steen Eugen Poulsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2319 bytes --]

Ryan Sims skrev:
> I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is
> just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this

Go read his post please, he is making things up and blaming the tool for
an idiot using it wrong.

He somehow thinks that genkernel is autoconfiggenrartorsuperai, It
isn't, it's a simple script to easily handle repeated compiles of kernels.

Anyone can write scripts to do the same or claim they don't mind writing
the same command over and over every time they handle a kernel compile,
but to turn around and use that fact to attack and descridit genkernel
so viciously done in this thread is nothing but FUD.


And to the lies:

Lie:
because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel
created by
genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past,
the
change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really
make things easier, does it?


Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config
for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating "f* up" kernels.

In /usr/share/genkernel you will find *TEMPLATES* that can be used, but
they aren't LiveCD setups to create all round kernels, it's possible
they should be, but at the moment they are rough templates you can use
to make a .config.


Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier.

It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config
creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task
involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple
configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel
as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution
to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles.

The kernel make file is very complicated and fragile, genkernels propper
step is *NOT* idiocy, but done because it avoid bugging the kernel
compile. (WARNING! Don't start doing mrproppers manually, it erase the
.config file, something that --save-config option of genkernel handles
so you don't loss your configuration)

All the rest of his hate drivel is based on this kind of made up FUD
against it and he is not alone, you see this hate FUD being spread all
over about a decent tool, the author(s) deserve better treatment than this.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3412 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <sep@lix-world.net> wrote:
> All the rest of his hate drivel is based on this kind of made up FUD
> against it and he is not alone, you see this hate FUD being spread all
> over about a decent tool, the author(s) deserve better treatment than this.

Completely agreed.
I'm a genkernel user since my first Gentoo install back in 2004, never
had any problems with it, at least none that wouldn't show in a normal
kernel compile.

I mean, it does nothing that normal sequence of compile commands would do...

Spreading that its "bad" and "breaks" stuff is just wrong with us (old
users) that use it with no problems, with new users that will not TRY
it because someone said it was bad, and with the developers that put
effort in designing a tool like this.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Arnau Bria wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400
>
> Ryan Sims wrote:
> > On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no one
> > > has tried to answer my question yet.
> >
> > In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your config
> > and genkernel's config.  How did that turn out?
>
> Mmm... I though I answered that.
> at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12
> genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in new
> 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir).
>
> So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig,
> and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I
> mean, what differneces could be between them? does genekenrel something
> differnet to make oldconfig?¿

a lot. there has changed a lot of stuff between .12 and .21


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote:

>
> And to the lies:
>
> Lie:
> because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel
> created by
> genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past,
> the
> change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really
> make things easier, does it?
>
>
> Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config
> for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating "f* up" kernels.

exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it.

>
> Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier.
>
> It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config
> creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task
> involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple
> configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel
> as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution
> to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles.

and how is make oldconfig && make all modules_install install harder to do 
than anything genkernel does?

oh, it isn't? genkernel is just another step that can go wrong.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Ryan Sims]

On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <sep@lix-world.net> wrote:
> an idiot using it wrong.
> so viciously done in this thread is nothing but FUD.
> change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it?
> All the rest of his hate drivel ... made up FUD
> you see this hate FUD being spread all

Please stop using inflammatory language.  Everyone.  If you must have
an argument, start a new thread or take it off list.  It's perfectly
fine for someone to criticize genkernel, or portage, or a hammer, or a
car, or any other tool.  It's also fine if you disagree with their
criticisms, that's what's so great about a diverse community like
gentoo; so many viewpoints.   Daniels reply to your post is well said,
and a perfectly valid objection to Volker's crticism, words like
"hate" "drivel" "FUD" and such are *not*.

The authors deserve intelligent feedback on their creations, which can
be negative, but not inflammatory.  It *really* isn't worth calling
each other names, so PLEASE STOP.

-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 8/31/07, Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote:
>
> >
> > And to the lies:
> >
> > Lie:
> > because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel
> > created by
> > genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past,
> > the
> > change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really
> > make things easier, does it?
> >
> >
> > Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config
> > for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating "f* up" kernels.
>
> exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it.
>
> >
> > Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier.
> >
> > It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config
> > creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task
> > involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple
> > configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel
> > as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution
> > to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles.
>
> and how is make oldconfig && make all modules_install install harder to do
> than anything genkernel does?

It doesn't rename to the version you're using, it doesn't keep
different configs for different versions, doesn't mount /boot
automatically, it doesn't create a initrd automatically (yeah, you may
not use, but lots of us do), specially with gensplash on it, also the
config and way genkernel boots is good for testing machines that keep
exchanging hardware a lot, it also is much safer than reading (and not
understanding) make help.

But again, its all a question of TASTE. Your taste may be different
and so you'll probably (as you do in most mails) put your own personal
thoughts ignoring that maybe someone thinks different. But that does
not give you the right to diss the tool because you don't like it,
devs put effort to make user's life easier with tools like genkernel,
and the ones who use the tool like it, as some that would try it would
like too, accept that.

>
> oh, it isn't? genkernel is just another step that can go wrong.
> --

Can't you just post your opinion, without bragging about how your
choices are better than ours?

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Steen Eugen Poulsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

Ryan Sims skrev:
> Please stop using inflammatory language.  Everyone.  If you must have
> an argument, start a new thread or take it off list.  It's perfectly
> fine for someone to criticize genkernel, or portage, or a hammer, or a
> car, or any other tool.  It's also fine if you disagree with their
> criticisms, that's what's so great about a diverse community like
> gentoo; so many viewpoints.   Daniels reply to your post is well said,
> and a perfectly valid objection to Volker's crticism, words like
> "hate" "drivel" "FUD" and such are *not*.

Show me  where Volker is actually giving critisim. All he does is make
up stories that has nothing to do with what genkernel actually does.

If he at least talked about lets say the template kernels should be more
like LiveCD kernels or some other *PRODUCTIVE* critisim, then fine.

But no his ONLY goal here is to ruin genkernel, there is nothing in this
thread the author(s) can use to change the product to make Volkor happy,
only thing that will satisfy his attacks would be to remove the product
from Gentoo.



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3412 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Ryan Sims]

On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <sep@lix-world.net> wrote:
> Ryan Sims skrev:
> > Please stop using inflammatory language.  Everyone.  If you must have
> > an argument, start a new thread or take it off list.  It's perfectly
> > fine for someone to criticize genkernel, or portage, or a hammer, or a
> > car, or any other tool.  It's also fine if you disagree with their
> > criticisms, that's what's so great about a diverse community like
> > gentoo; so many viewpoints.   Daniels reply to your post is well said,
> > and a perfectly valid objection to Volker's crticism, words like
> > "hate" "drivel" "FUD" and such are *not*.
>
> Show me  where Volker is actually giving critisim. All he does is make
> up stories that has nothing to do with what genkernel actually does.

My apologies, I didn't mean to be defending anyone.  I *would* like
*one of you* to admit to your invective, apologize and move one.  I
won't hold my breath, but it'd be nice.

[snip]

Ok, I've decided I'm doing more damage than good here.  Arnau, if you
want to take this off list away from the static (much of it generated
by me, apologies), please feel free to email me, I'll help as far as I
can.  Otherwise, I think it best that I shut the hell up.

-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Dan Farrell]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:44:34 -0400
"Ryan Sims" <rwsims@gmail.com> wrote:


> [snip]
> 
> Ok, I've decided I'm doing more damage than good here.  Arnau, if you
> want to take this off list away from the static (much of it generated
> by me, apologies), please feel free to email me, I'll help as far as I
> can.  Otherwise, I think it best that I shut the hell up.
> 
Oh, i don't know about that; i think it's good for someone to say "be
nice" every once in a while.  after all, it's sometimes easy to forget
when sitting alone at a console that one must act as if one was looking
all these people in the face.  

besides, these messages will find their way onto many mailing list
archives.  We're really representing the gentoo community here, even if
the list isn't a central hub of gentoo-related communications (and
thank god for that).  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Александър Л. Димитров]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

On 01:09 Fri 31 Aug, Arnau Bria wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:52:54 -0400
> Ryan Sims wrote:
> 
> > On 8/30/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag 30 August 2007 20:16:02 schrieb Ryan Sims:
> > > > On 8/30/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
> Genekrnel used one, so I assume my kernel generated using genkernel's
> config needs initrd too.
> 

There are two reasons for using an initrd IIRC:

- you need a userland utility during boot time
- you need to load modules during boot time

'during boot time' refers to the few seconds the kernel needs to boot
up. That's done when it says 'Init version foo loading'.
I did never need to use an initrd, but I was forced to do so lately
because of uvesafb - if you didn't patch your kernel you probably don't
need an initrd.

So I suggest you edit your .config using make menuconfig and compile
stuff like fs-drivers and hdd controllers into the kernel since that
stuff usually tends not to change that often and go without an initrd
since it only adds lag to the boot procedure for nothing.

Regards,
	Aleks

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> 
wrote:
> > On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote:
> > > And to the lies:
> > >
> > > Lie:
> > > because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel
> > > created by
> > > genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the
> > > past, the
> > > change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't
> > > really make things easier, does it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config
> > > for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating "f* up" kernels.
> >
> > exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it.
> >
> > > Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier.
> > >
> > > It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config
> > > creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task
> > > involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple
> > > configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel
> > > as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution
> > > to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles.
> >
> > and how is make oldconfig && make all modules_install install harder to
> > do than anything genkernel does?
>
> It doesn't rename to the version you're using,

it creates symlinks to the kernel installed and *.old symlinks to the old 
files. So it does not need to rename anything.

> it doesn't keep 
> different configs for different versions,

no, because this configs are allready there.

> doesn't mount /boot 

ok, it doesn't.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Marc Blumentritt]

Arnau Bria schrieb:
> 4.-) mkinitrd initrm.2.6.21 2.6.21-gentoo-r4
> 5.-) Edited menu.lst (just copied genkernel entry and modified to my
> new bzimage and initram files)
> 
> but my new kernel did not start, and gave me a kernel panic...
> 
> So I wonder what differences could be between my compilation and
> genkernel one...

As far as I understand genkernel, the only real difference is the making
of the initrd. Genkernel pulls in some modules defined by it's default
configuration. So if your system needs these modules to boot, and your
"manual" build of the initrd does not include these modules, your kernel
will not boot.

Did you ever try to find out, which modules your system needs? If you
build these drivers into your kernel and not as modules, everything
should work.


Another mistake often made are spelling and copy & paste errors. For
example you are writing at under point 4 "initrm.2.6.21". Did you mean
"initrd.2.6.21"?


Regards,
Marc

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Arnau Bria]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:09:46 -0400
Ryan Sims wrote:

> On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:19 -0400
> > Ryan Sims wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/31/07, Arnau Bria <arnau@emergetux.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > > > Really, I like to read people's opinion about genkernel, but no
> > > > one has tried to answer my question yet.
> > >
> > > In my first reply, I suggested looking at a diff between your
> > > config and genkernel's config.  How did that turn out?
> >
> > Mmm... I though I answered that.
> > at conceptual level, I did a gunzip and moved original 2.6.12
> > genkernel's /proc/config.gz to .config and then, make oldconfig in
> > new 2.6.21 sources dir (/usr/src/linux link dir).
> >
> > So, I should do a diff between my new .config after make oldc onfig,
> > and currently config generated by genkernel... but has it sense? I
> > mean, what differneces could be between them?
> 
> That's what we're trying to find out.  If the diff comes up empty,
> we'll have to look elsewhere, but it's easy to check.


afrodita ~ # cp /usr/src/linux/.config config-2.21
afrodita ~ # head config-2.21
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4
# Wed Aug 29 21:57:06 2007
#
CONFIG_X86_32=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME=y
CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST=y

afrodita ~ # cd /usr/src/linux
afrodita ~ # uname -a
Linux afrodita 2.6.16-gentoo-r12 #1 SMP Sat Aug 26 23:59:18 CEST 2006 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

afrodita linux # zcat /proc/config.gz > .config
afrodita linux # zcat /proc/config.gz > .config
afrodita linux # head .config
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.16-gentoo-r12
# Sat Aug 26 23:44:30 2006
#
CONFIG_X86_32=y
CONFIG_SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS=y
CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_MMU=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_ISA_DMA=y

afrodita linux # make oldconfig
(all default options marked).
afrodita linux # head .config
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4
# Sat Sep  1 16:40:04 2007

afrodita linux # cp .config /root/config-2.12
afrodita ~ # head -n 5 config-2.12
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4
# Sat Sep  1 16:33:04 2007
#
afrodita ~ # head -n 5 config-2.21
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.21-gentoo-r4
# Wed Aug 29 21:57:06 2007
#
afrodita ~ # diff config-2.21 config-2.12
4c4
< # Wed Aug 29 21:57:06 2007
---
> # Sat Sep  1 16:33:04 2007


so, both configs have same options.

> One thing...are you actually going from 2.6.12 to .21?  Or is that a
> typo?
not a typo, going from 2.6.12 to 2.6.21.

> While you're rebooting, see if you can get your new kernel to panic
> again at boot, write down the error, and post it.
> 
I'm compiling the kernel again for seeing the panic.

Cheers,
Arnau
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] genkernel vs kernel manual compilation

[Arnau Bria]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:47:01 +0200
Arnau Bria wrote:

The Panic:
Mounting /proc filesystem
Creating block devices
failed to create /dev/hde
failed to create /dev/hde1
failed to create /dev/hde2
failed to create /dev/hde3
failed to create /dev/hde4
failed to create /dev/hde5
failed to create /dev/hde6
Creating root device
mkrootdev: mknod failed: 30
Mounting root filesystem
mount: error 2 mounting ext3
pivotroot: pivot_root(/sysroot,/sysroot/initrd) failed: 2
umount /initrd/proc failed: 2
Kenrel Panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init


sorry if you see any typo, copied from server's screen.

 Cheers,
 Arnau
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list