Problems compiling new kernels in 5.1
Kyle B Ferrio
I'm having some surprising difficulties, when I try to compile a new
kernel.
I did a clean install of Manhattan, which seemed to be "mostly ok." I
compiled a new kernel, with modules, just like I always do (and just as
described on pp. 153-155 of the Installation Guide). I guess I
encountered the same kernel version naming problem that other people have
reported, but that was easily fixed. Everything went fine. I backed up
the old modules and installed the new ones. The key modules are for SCSI,
PPP, and MSDOG fs support.
I copied zImage to my DOS partition (where loadlin finds it) and rebooted.
The new kernel boots and finds the SCSI bus. This is key.
The new kernel does NOT find PPP or modular fs support. Ack!
I checked /lib/modules/2.0.36/fs and /lib/modules/2.0.36/net, and msdos.o
and ppp.o are there. What's up?
(Also, now my local timezone resets to UTC every time I reboot.
This leads to some clock-slew warnings during subsequent compiles.)
So I made sure kerneld was warning and fired off a 'depmod -a' as root.
No joy.
Fortunately, I keep an old 1.2.8 Slackware partition hot for cases like
this. I cut my Linux teeth earlier than even that, so I have plenty of
persistence. But I feel like I must be missing something silly here...
TIA,
Kyle
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail redhat-instal...@redhat.com
with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Problems should be addressed to <listm...@redhat.com>.
Mike
have a bearing on some peoples problems of running 5.1.
After I installed 5.1, I booted the system via the
boot floppy and had problems of the printer not working and
file system and cdrom. I was told that there was a problem
that was being worked on , where if you boot from a floppy,
the system doesn't work right. I was told that if you boot
from Lilo that the system will work. I installed Lilo and it works !!
Now I believe, that the same problem exists if you use Loadlin.
So I would boot from Lilo and see it the system starts working.
Mike
Kyle B Ferrio
This is a followup to my own message, copied below for reference.
First, I was wrong: *none* of the modules is loaded by either the kernel
distributed with 5.1 or by any I compile myself. (The SCSI faked me out.)
The problem lies with /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit. Yes, I installed the erratum
for initscripts. The problem persisted. So I started digging around, to
reconcile /proc data with /lib/modules and /var/log/messages.
Maybe everyone else knows otherwise, but I thought that the erratum for
initiscripts (now up to 3.67-1) was supposed to fix the problem with the
naming scheme for module-directories, vis a vis depmod resolution. It
didn't for me.
The new rc.sysinit still fails to find the modules, in RedHat's new naming
scheme. The work-around for me was to create a symlink from
/lib/modules/2.0.34-0.6 to /lib/modules/2.0.34. The problem is clear in
/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit.
I would also like to raise a concern about the code just before the depmod
calls in rc.sysinit. The hard-coded grep for /lib/modules/2.0.*/.rhkmvtag
is just waiting to break when kernel 2.2 is released.
Did I by chance buy a copy of 5.1 that was never meant to ship? It *is*
the official boxed set. It seems like at least a few people would be
rioting, if this were widespread...
Thanks to all who replied,
Kyle
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Kyle B Ferrio wrote:
>
> I'm having some surprising difficulties, when I try to compile a new
> kernel.
>
> I did a clean install of Manhattan, which seemed to be "mostly ok." I
> compiled a new kernel, with modules, just like I always do (and just as
> described on pp. 153-155 of the Installation Guide). I guess I
> encountered the same kernel version naming problem that other people have
> reported, but that was easily fixed. Everything went fine. I backed up
> the old modules and installed the new ones. The key modules are for SCSI,
> PPP, and MSDOG fs support.
>
> I copied zImage to my DOS partition (where loadlin finds it) and rebooted.
>
> The new kernel boots and finds the SCSI bus. This is key.
> The new kernel does NOT find PPP or modular fs support. Ack!
> I checked /lib/modules/2.0.36/fs and /lib/modules/2.0.36/net, and msdos.o
> and ppp.o are there. What's up?
>
> (Also, now my local timezone resets to UTC every time I reboot.
> This leads to some clock-slew warnings during subsequent compiles.)
>
> So I made sure kerneld was warning and fired off a 'depmod -a' as root.
> No joy.
>
> Fortunately, I keep an old 1.2.8 Slackware partition hot for cases like
> this. I cut my Linux teeth earlier than even that, so I have plenty of
> persistence. But I feel like I must be missing something silly here...
>
> TIA,
> Kyle
>
>
Kyle B Ferrio
Mike: Thanks for the tip, though I don't care to use LILO at all. - Kyle
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Mike wrote:
> There is a problem that I have encountered that might
> have a bearing on some peoples problems of running 5.1.
> After I installed 5.1, I booted the system via the
> boot floppy and had problems of the printer not working and
> file system and cdrom. I was told that there was a problem
> that was being worked on , where if you boot from a floppy,
> the system doesn't work right. I was told that if you boot
> from Lilo that the system will work. I installed Lilo and it works !!
> Now I believe, that the same problem exists if you use Loadlin.
> So I would boot from Lilo and see it the system starts working.
>
> Mike
>
>
Webmaster
> Did I by chance buy a copy of 5.1 that was never meant to ship? It *is*
> the official boxed set. It seems like at least a few people would be
> rioting, if this were widespread...
Yes! IT was a piece of utter crap! NO QUALITY ASSURANCE!!! Over 80
MEGABYTES of patches.
I am a consultant on systems analysis and software engineering. I
rely on my notebook machine every day. I went back to 5.0 after that
screwed up my notebook machine completely! Even their CD-ROM drivers were
flawed, and could not complete a 5.1 install, leaving me with a worthless
notebook machine! Without that machine up, I lost VALUABLE time from
work! More than the price of all the versions I have ever bought from Red
Hat!!!
Red Hat -- GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER! You were once GREAT! But today
is not yesterday. We all know software is buggy. That is why we have
Quality Assurance Testing and Beta releases in this industry. Your
MANAGEMENT decision to cut Quality Assurance have cost a LOT of customers.
If you won't clean up your act, you WILL go out of business.
1. Post the serial number range that is affected by EACH patch.
2. Use incremental numbers or letters as stickers ON THE PACKAGE!
3. Make a free or cheap update available to all those you screwed
with the early 5.1 releases!
4. Set up a beta test program, $5.00 beta CD-ROM, limited numbers, a
month or two before each release. (I won't use it, but some will, and they
will save your rear end!)
5. Release when it is ready, not when some arbitrary schedule demands
it! Even MoronSloth had the sense to hold back on Win95!
When we buy our CD's, we are PAYING you to AVOID downloads and
compiles. Yes, we do want the source, but we don't want to HAVE to
download and compile!
Red Hat -- YOU have to win back our trust!
I got a SuSE demo disk. It installed. It says something about auto
setup for IP Masquerade and other things, but I have not yet installed in
on my gateway machine. What I HATE about SuSE, is that their YAST
installer assumes that it OWNS all the configuration files, and trashes
all your customization every time you use it! That is more or less
unacceptable for my gateway machine. (You should let pieces of your
install process be used stand alone.)
BUT SuSE runs!!! Well!
Yggdrasil will be releasing a far superior version in about 60 days.
They have been going around to installfests and doing beta tests on
people's machines, installing it free just to see if it works on oddball
hardware. They are doing their homework. Red Hat obviously didn't!
Didn't on 4.1, and not on 5.1!
SuSE install also talks about firewalling and IP Masquerade, as if
they are built-in, very, very tempting for my gateway machine...
I am an applications type guy, not an OS maven. I use machines to
Get Things Done, not to tinker. I run production. I want binaries from
known reliable sources, so that I KNOW whether a problem is in the
original, or introduced by my own compilations. That is also why I don't
download. When I start seg faulting, as I have on several occasions, I am
not going to do a re-compile because I don't know if it is my hardware, do
I??? If I re-install what seg faults, I have a good idea if it is
hardware. If I recompile something on a machine that seg faults... it
would only tell me that I was STUPID!
I bought 5.1 because I was hoping IP Masquerade would be fixed, that
X might work, and mostly, because it had Squid, a proxy app. I tried to
RPM Squid to my 5.0 system. Lots of files, but no binary, and not even a
make file. STUPID!!! Maybe it builds under X, but X does not work for me
on 5.0, or 4.2.
I buy new releases for the added functionality, tools, etc. AND bug
fixes! It is obvious to me that Red Hat can not be trusted on version
numbers or to have a good workable product. That is just plain STUPID in
a market that is mostly word of mouth.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Well, they've fooled me twice. I've had it! If Yggdrasil's late
Beta (which I will be getting next week) does not work well, I will switch
over to SuSE for all my machines, and take my lumps over configuration
files. (I ran SuSE 4.4.2 for a while, when I think it was Red Hat 4.2
that had memory leaks or something.) I am already running the latest demo
version of SuSE on one of my machines. It isn't bad. (Yet...?)
When people start praising Red Hat more than SuSE, then I might
consider switching back; but only after I hear a LOT of good things about
SEVERAL stable and correctly numbered releases. Right now I am hearing a
lot of BAD things about Red Hat's IDIOTIC release POLICY. And it is a
POLICY decision, made by MANAGEMENT, not by technical people.
As a consultant, I know very well that Management sets the standards,
tells the technical people what to do, and replaces them if they screw up.
Management decides how much Quality Assurance testing is enough; not the
technical people. If you can not trust the MANAGEMENT of a company, what
is there left to trust???
Red Hat -- Bite the bullet, be DIFFERENT from moronsloth! Admit you
screwed up, then make the MANAGEMENT decisions necessary to DO THINGS
RIGHT! Time and again I have seen companies on the verge of bankrupcy or
actually go out of business because they did not improve the PROCESS of
software development and Customer Satisfaction. Address the STEPS of the
PROCESS! When you have that in place, a screwup won't be able to make it
out the door! QA saves corporate lives!
jav...@mall-net.com ---------- webm...@Mall-Net.com
------------- Every mouse click, a Vote ---------------
------ Do they vote For, or Against your pages? -------
-------------------------------------------------------
Hit and Link Analysis: http://www.mall-net.com/webcons/
-------------------------------------------------------
Web Imagineering -- Analysis, Architecture, Automation,
Advanced CGI-BIN Programming, and Content Development.
<A HREF="http://www.mall-net.com"> www.Mall-Net.com</A>
* Anti-Spam FAQ: http://www.mall-net.com/spamfaq.html
^HiDDeN^
or maybe get a abacus or something
Webmaster wrote:
--
Martin N.
^HiDDeN^
Admin On Demand
Mitch
>maybe you should stick to something more suited to you.....like win311
>or maybe get a abacus or something
That was totally unnecessary. He has a valid point.
I too have an early copy of 5.1 (shipped 2nd June). I live in the UK
where there is no such thing as free local calls. Therefore
downloading all the updates has cost me a fair amount in tele calls. A
reasonable amount of QC by RedHatwould have made this unecessary.
I'm afraid that supercilious comments such as yours do not help the
Linux cause.
--
Mitch
[Using RedHat 5.1]
Slartibartfast
>maybe you should stick to something more suited to you.....like win311
>or maybe get a abacus or something
>
Maybe you should stick to avoiding contact with humanity alltogether.
The complaints are valid, as Redhat 5.1 is a very poor distribution.
They have failed to deliver since 4.2, now you give me a good reason
to continue using Redhat.
I can't find one.
--
I smell, therefore I am.
Slartibartfast
Wolfgang Bornath
wrote:
> Yes! IT was a piece of utter crap! NO QUALITY ASSURANCE!!! Over 80
>MEGABYTES of patches.
>
> I am a consultant on systems analysis and software engineering. I
>rely on my notebook machine every day. I went back to 5.0 after that
>screwed up my notebook machine completely! Even their CD-ROM drivers were
>flawed, and could not complete a 5.1 install, leaving me with a worthless
>notebook machine! Without that machine up, I lost VALUABLE time from
>work! More than the price of all the versions I have ever bought from Red
>Hat!!!
[.....]
Nice stuff to read. Here I am, a Linux-newbie with 10 months of
satisfiing work with SuSE 5.1. I was told again and again that SuSE is
a distribution only for the weak and not-so-bright. And after
SuSEconfig just crashed some of my config-files through yast I decided
to buy RedHat as soon as 5.1 hits the German stores. So I did. Now I
must read this!
What do I do? Put more time & work into installation and bite my way
through or just try to sell it for half the price I paid (RH5.1 box w/
book costs more than 80,- deutschmarks over here)? Furthermore I
learned that I´ll have to do some heavy d´loading which is quite
expensive in Germany (Thank you, Telekom).
I guess I´ll try and look for some help in the usenet-community.
Wolfgang, who daringly erased his working SuSE-Linux.
Micah S.
> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 15:17:24 +1000
> From: ^HiDDeN^ <hid...@gsd.com.au>
> Reply-To: redhat-in...@redhat.com
> To: redhat-in...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Problems compiling new kernels in 5.1
> Resent-Date: 26 Jul 1998 05:34:23 -0000
> Resent-From: redhat-in...@redhat.com
> Resent-cc: recipient.list.not.shown:;
>
> maybe you should stick to something more suited to you.....like win311
> or maybe get a abacus or something
I hate to say it, but he DID have several very valid points. I'm a
die-hard RH user, and I liked the 5.0 install. 5.1 had serveral nifty new
"toys" in it, but there have also been several massive headaches in it.
I'm not to the
"disgruntled-postal-worker-so-I'll-switch-operating-systems" point...
yet...