Re: Modules/devices
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:25:39PM -0500, Russell Hires wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Hmmm...Gosh, I've got to comment on all of this! First, I'm about to install
> the 2.2.17 kernel and modules, and such. Christian, I have to wonder about
> your instructions to use "dpkg -x <package>.deb <dir to unpack to>" from an
> email you sent at the beginning of November. Why do we want to unpack the
> kernel images instead of installing them?
That was for the people who wanted to have a tar.gz with kernel image and
modules, because they could not boot with the current boot-floppies. Without
an m68k install they can not install with dpkg. But if they have an i386
debian system, they can get the kernel and modules out of the deb there
(thats how I created the tar.gz files).
Everybody else, who has a running m68k linux already, simply installs the
deb, copy vmlinuz-<version> the the native partition and reboots.
> Tomorrow I will be booting the 2.2.17 kernel on my Quadra 610. I'll let you
> know how it goes.
Can you please also let us know how the 2.2.10 works? Because that one will
be used for the next bf, test it now or cry later. 2.2.17 was tested by Ray
Knight. I do not expect problems then.
> Second, I don't run any of the Window Managers, mainly because they seem so
> slow. I had a terrible time attempting even to run a shell. I gave up and
> went back to our friend the command line. (ugh, I might add, but better than
> verrry verrry slooowww...)
You can use the command line just fine when you are in xwindows. But X
without a window manager... thats a cripled system. There are lightweight
window managers, I use fvwm, but I think there are some which use even less
resources.
> Third, okay, maybe no third...I would like to know where to get the source
> for the latest kernel builds (2.2.16/.17) so I can "roll my own" -- I love
> the idea that it can take days to compile my own kernel, but that it still
> works! (It's that whole "ideals" thing.) I looked through the last messages
> and haven't seen an address for the source. Is it at the sourceforge site,
> or somewhere else? I also looked back through the archives and saw
> instructions on getting the source from the CVS server. Will those
> instructions point me to the latest source?
You did not look at my sig. Why do I mention the potato page all the time?
Look at the very bottom, I added a link to Nicks kernel-patch and -image
packages, plus a link to the mac CVS. You want to install
kernel-source-2.2.17 (from woody?) and the kernel-patch-2.2.17 (for! woody)
package from Nick and read the README in the patch package.
Mac CVS might contain newer source, but nick is pretty fast and you want to
help debian-m68k and not (yet) linuxmac68k, right?
> I also note that the later kernels (at this point, later than 2.2.10) seem
> to still be considered "unstable." How do they get labeled with "stability"
> status (and thus, included in the boot floppies)?
After it has been tested. Not for 2.2r2 probably, but for 2.2r3 I think. I
will build _test_ boot-flopies well before that (once they can be built
again for m68k...). 2.2.17 is runing now since 3 days on my amiga, looking
good.
Is there no atari user who can test 2.2.10?
I am putting new 2.2.17 builds (same version number) on the kernel page now.
Look at the date, I think I will upload these soon.
ca. 1MB snipped. Can you please stop citing the _complete_ message you replied
to?
Christian
--
http://people.debian.org/~cts/debian-m68k/potato
Reply to: