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

Re: Mac-On-Linux - elf32_getehdr failed

"C.M. Connelly" wrote:
> "KW" == Kent West <westk@nicanor.acu.edu> writes:
>    KW> Since I had read that 2.2.15 had problems (which is
>    KW> what I started with on this Mac), I downloaded the source
>    KW> for 2.2.16 (I couldn't find 2.2.16 on the Debian site, only
>    KW> older versions and 2.2.17pre6 -- why isn't 2.2.16 there?
>    KW> aren't the even-numbered versions stable and the odd ones
>    KW> developmental?) from one of the major sites (linux.org?
>    KW> linux.com? I don't remember now). I applied the patch and
>    KW> then compiled the kernel, turning on the MOL component.
> 2.2.16 also has problems, as do the first few of Alan Cox's
> prepatches (at least one of them was unbuildable on PowerPC
> because some symbols were missing from an include file; the latest
> PowerPC stuff still isn't completely merged, but 2.2.17pre6 seems
> to work fine on my machine: Linux diziet 2.2.17pre6-dartlin #1 Fri
> Jun 23 01:37:27 PDT 2000 ppc unknown).
> As for the even-numbered vs. odd-numbered question, the 2.2.*
> series is the stable series; 2.3.* is the current unstable series,
> but will soon become the stable 2.4.* series, with 2.5.* replacing
> 2.3.* as the experimental series.  In other words, the second
> number is the significant one for determining stable vs. unstable,
> not the last.
> Lots of other people chimed in with pointers to the development
> package you needed, but no one mentioned a handy tool on the
> Debian Web site for determining the answer to such questions.  If
> you're trying to compile something and run across a missing file,
> you can use the search form at the *bottom* of
> <http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages> to look for them -- be
> sure to set the distribution field to frozen (if you want potato)
> or unstable (if you want the latest and greatest) -- once potato
> is actually released, stable would work fine.  The search script
> will return a list of packages that contain the file you searched
> for; you can then download the relevant package with APT.  (You
> can search for just the file name, which might return several
> packages, or for the whole path (if you know it), which should
> only return one or two.)
> I've actually copied the source code for both the search forms on
> that page, as well as the ones for the bug tracking system, to a
> local page on my system so I have a quick way of accessing various
> search engines.  I highly recommend doing so to anyone who might
> be doing a fair amount of searching.
>    CMC
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>  Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space,
>  a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear.
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>    C.M. Connelly               c@eskimo.com                   SHC, DS
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Thanks! That's a lot of good info. Do you reckon I'd be better
off going to 2.2.17 now, or is 2.2.16 acceptable enough to keep
using it? I'd jump to 2.2.17, but I hate going through the
configure process since there's so many options that I just don't
know about. I know I'll reconfigure sometime fairly soon, but I'd
just as soon not do so for a couple of weeks if 2.2.16 is
acceptable enough to last that long.

Kent West

Reply to: