[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#345918: linux-2.6: modules do not install to correct folder in /lib/modu



> Calling 'make -C /lib/modules/2.6.15-1-686/build kernelrelease' shows the > kernel release as 2.6.15, but shouldn't this show 2.6.15-1-686, (which is
> defined for UTS_RELEASE in version.h)?

can you give the output of :

dpkg -l | grep linux-header

raburton@raburton:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-header
ii linux-headers-2.6-686 2.6.15-1 Architecture-specific header files for Linux ii linux-headers-2.6.14-2 2.6.14-7 Common header files for Linux kernel 2.6.14 ii linux-headers-2.6.14-2-686 2.6.14-7 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.14 on PPro ii linux-headers-2.6.15-1 2.6.15-1 Common header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 ii linux-headers-2.6.15-1-686 2.6.15-1 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.15 on PPro
raburton@raburton:~$


Please, the issue may be related to you not having the right header package
installed, or the header package being buggy, but i believe the first to be
the case. You need the per flavour linux-header package, which should include
a configured .config file, settign the $KERNELRELEASE variable to the right
thing, somwhere in this chain something may be wrong, either on your part or
ours.

Seems to be no mention of the version number (except a comment) in the .config files:
root@raburton:~# locate .config | grep 2.6.15 | xargs grep 2.6.15
/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.15-1-686/.config:# Linux kernel version: 2.6.15-1-686
/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.15-1/.config:# Linux kernel version: 2.6.15-1
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-image-2.6.15-1-686.config:my $version = "2.6.15-1-686";

Another try is :
apt-get source -b pwc

I had to install kernel-package and linux-headers-2.6.14 (which pulled in headers for all kinds of x86 cpus i don't have) to get this to pass the dependancy check, but it still failed to build. And it appears it was trying to build using the headers for k7, not 686 too. That package seems messed up, probably not the best one to test with.

Richard.





Reply to: