Re: Generating a Lenny Netinst CD with a newer kernel
Found a solution for at least a part of the problem:
The file "sources.list.udeb.local" did not have the correct entries.
sources.list.udeb even contains the comment "# This file is
automatically generated, edit sources.list.udeb.local instead.", so my
bad. Must have been too late...
Now all that is left is to resolve the dependencies: packages
crypto-core-modules-2.6.29-2-amd64-di and efi-modules are missing.
And I'm still wondering about the 2.6.26 stuff.
2009/6/5 Martin Gerdes <martin.gerdes83@googlemail.com>:
> Since the lenny netinst CD recognized neither the RAID controller, nor the
> networking card of our server (a dell poweredge r710), we decided to build
> ourselves a custom lenny installer cd using a newer installer kernel.
> We tried to follow these tutorials:
> https://lliurex.net/projects/valencia/lliurex-pool/browser/installer/trunk/debian-installer/doc/custom-kernel.txt?rev=3506
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Modify/CustomKernel
>
> We used the kernel from lenny_backports (2.6.29).
> After figuring out that kernel-wedge had to be upgraded to its unstable
> version, we managed to build the udebs, and moved them to build/localudebs.
> We than found out that we had to uncomment monolithic in
> build/config/amd64.cfg to make the build_monolithic target available.
> However, "make build_monolithic" fails with "E: Konnte Paket
> acpi-modules-2.6.29-2-amd64-di nicht finden" (Transl.: could not find packet
> acpi-modules-2.6.29-2-amd64-di)
>
> Furthermore, there is a lot of stuff like "fat-modules-2.6.26-1-amd64-di" in
> the package list, even though we have only build udebs for 2.6.29, and
> changed the KERNELVESION parameter in build/config/amd64.cfg accordingly.
>
> We tried copying the line "deb
> copy:/usr/src/debian-installer-20090123lenny1/build/ localudebs/" from
> build/sources.list.udeb to /etc/apt/sources.list. Now we can download the
> module acpi-modules-2.6.29-2-amd64-di using normal apt-get. So the build
> script really _should_ find the packages, shouldn't it?
>
> What are we doing wrong? And what about the 2.6.26 packages?
>
>
>
Reply to: