Re: cannot find the Kernelimage aft compiling
Carel Fellinger wrote:
> Hai Robert Wilhelm,
>
> I think we have a communication problem here, so let's at both sides
> try to be more explicit and maybe a little more informative:)
Thanks for your patience, Carel.
> No, it is a three step process.
>
> 0) get the kernel source and apply all the necessary patches
> 1a) configure the kernel
> 1b) and compile the kernel
> 1c) and build a deb file from it clearing the source tree as a side effect
> 2a) use dpkg to install the above build deb file wich is stored in the
> parent directory of the source tree
> 2b) and use lilo to bring the MBR up to date
>
> dpkg is smart enough to propose lilo, so step 2a and 2b feel like one step.
> Likewise make-kpkg is smart enough to combine 1b and 1c. But you can do all
> the steps by hand if you feel particularly masochistic that is:) So there
> is no need to use any debian specific tool, except for the fact that it makes
> live *so* much more easier.
Thats a nice and short explaination - thank you very much! I guess 2a
includes make modules_install and mv's the system.map to the
appropiate place?
> > didn't know that, in fact I would rather keep the old way and not
> > access the help of all these whisles and bells. Additionally, I have
>
> Be our guest, what ever suits you
>
> > As I previously stated, the image cannot be found in src/../boot/..
>
> If you are using make-kpkg and subsequently dpkg -i ../some-kernel-package
> then the kernel image is put in /boot. Most likely you don't have a /src,
> i.e. a src dir in the / root dir, so src/../boot doesn't exist. Just have
> a look in /boot.
Sure, I do have a src tree, I wouldn't have been able to compile
anything properly without one.
Debian 2.2 creates one in /usr, in the end this makes up /usr/src.
As far as I'm concerned most distributions and README's recommend to
create a linux/ dir as a sub of src/ and I did so.
In the end this makes up:
/usr/src/linux/kernel-source-2.2.17/arch/i386/boot
- after x-tar'ing the kernet-sourcexx.tar.gz. Usually you find a
kernel image file in the above mentioned ..arch/i386/boot (not the
/boot!) and exactly there is none.
The impression I get now is - after reading your explaination - step
2a/b would not work without step b/c (dpkg -i ../some-kernel-package
needs a *.deb file) which I would rather discribe as masochistic
because I have to learn another new kernel-build process which relies
only on Debian and cannot be used on other distributions. Likewise, my
previous kernel-build process can be put into /dev/null because no
one knows what exactly happens using dpkg and make-kpkg and is not
able to tell where to find my kernel image file! Now that not what I
would expect which I would discribe as the "linux spirit". After some
years we all end up with distribution linux flavours with very less in
common an a CEO in Redmond laughing at us.
I can't believe it!
> > and I would really like to understand why the current 2.2.17 kernel is
> > a exe while my old 2.0.38 kernel is 'simple' binary file?
>
> Both are executable files, or actually compressed executable files.
> I know you don't want to talk tools, but... How did you notice that
> the two differ? Did you use the "file" command? Or less or...
Actually only by ls -l, I only had a short look at the zImage file in
..src/../boot with the help of less.
Robert
Reply to: