Re: Kernel Headers question (and Winmodems)
* Bill Moseley <moseley@hank.org> [2004 Dec 12 16:41 -0600]:
>
> I'm going to try and get the winmodem working in my Toshiba laptop.
> >From a quick look it seems like I'll need to build the ltmodem package
> from http://ltmodem.heby.de/
>
>
> I build kernel images for my laptop on a separate machine and then
> copy the kernel-image-*.deb to the laptop for installation. I'll need
> kernel headers to build the ltmodem package. I'm wondering what the
> best method is to get the headers on the laptop -- and how the differ:
>
> 1) Should I just copy /usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.9 to the laptop and
> setup a /usr/src/linux symlink?
>
> 2) use make-kpkg kernel_headers (which I've never done) to build a
> kernel headers package and install that on the laptop?
>
> 3) or use the Debian kernel-headers-2.6.9-1-686 package. I'm not sure
> if I can do that since I build my own kernel.
>
>
> Also, anyone have experience getting a winmodem working? I've got a
> Xircom (Lucent/Agere DSP) mini-PCI K56Flex modem.
>
> The scanModem script says I need ltmodem-8.31a9.tar.gz.
>
> The info online about winmodems seems to be a confusing mix of
> looping web links, and it's hard to know what's outdated or is different
> with 2.6 kernels.
FYI, should you decide to use the Debian kernels, you can find ltmodem
debs at:
deb http://www.sfu.ca/~cth/ltmodem/dists/debian/ ./
Right now the latest supported kernel is 2.6.8 and several 2.4 kernels
have packages built against them.
I am using the ltmodem package on my Thinkpad 390E which has the
Lucent/Agere modem. The package creates a sym-link of /dev/modem that
is listed in my /etc/ppp/peers/provider file(s). Kmod loads the modules
automatically and it works flawlessly.
- Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
Reply to: