Re: Re: Can someone spare some CPU time?
> 3. I have tried kernel versions; 2.0.34 -> 2.1.124 and 2.2.10 with
> patches
These don't sound like they were good (or even officially released)
m68k kernel versions. You apparently did _not_ read the m68k FAQ which
explains why a specially patched m68k kernel source is required to build
working m68k kernels.
Where did you get the source from, and which patches did you use?
> 4. I have asked for help on the diff. problems I have with compiling
> the kernel, and have done everything I was told to do.
> 5. Currently I'm trying the 2.2.10 with debian patches, I downloade
> the source from ftp.debian.org, and is compiling with
I'm about 149.99% positive that 2.2.10 with debian patches still is not
even suppose to work for m68k (did anyone create a m68k 2.2.10 debian
kernel patch?). The only kernel source that is guaranteed to build
(assuming a sane .config and toolset) is the stuff on sunsite.auc.dk in
the 680x0 branch. There should be working kernel patches for a Debian
2.0.36 m68k kernel, but definitely not for 2.0.34, 2.1.124 or 2.2.10.
> gcc272_2.7.2.3-14.deb and binutils_2.9.5.0.12-2.deb
Sounds about right (it should build if it's the right source; it might not
boot if the binutils version is one of the broken ones that pad the kernel
data segment).
> 6. Yes I know how to install modules from a .tar file
> 7. Sorry I asked, I just thought some kind soul could help a another
> user........
Given enough information, this is always possible, but you just started to
give me the basic information I need to guess at your problem.
> 8. Look at the ml arcive there is most of the errors I
> get..............
And I'm sure that the advice 'only the m68k patched kernel source works'
is one of the usual answers there.
If you want me to look at the errors in the ML archive, please post an
URL.
Michael
Reply to: