Re: which kernel-image to use?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:47:49AM -0500, J. MacPhail wrote:
> Compared with the situation a year or two ago, installing ALSA is
> becoming quite easy, partly thanks to a nice explanation in
> /usr/share/doc/alsa-source/README.Debian.gz of how to build to match a
> kernel-image. Both alsa-source and kernel-patch-*-powerpc are in
> quite good shape! But I had some troubles that seem unnecessary, and
Thanks.
> maybe we can make the whole thing quite a bit easier. (Note that I
> used 2.4.22-6 versions, so maybe I'll get slapped if any of the
> following points is already fixed in 2.4.22-7.)
Well, the modules build thing is still a bit mysterious to me. But i am
working on it.
> First, there are different flavours of kernel-image at
> ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/k/kernel-patch-2.4.22-powerpc.
There are indeed 3 flavours : powerpc, powerpc-smp and powerpc-small.
The powerpc-smp flavour is for smp machines, and the powerpc one for the
rest of them. The powerpc-small one is for oldworld machines needing
miboot to boot, as it will fit on a floppy, and will be the default
kernel for oldworld machines in the debian-installer.
> The package information is quite vague about how the images differ.
Each of these flavours come with a common module package, and 4
different image subarches. These are the -pmac (comes with both vmlinux
and the .coff image) and the -chrp, -chrp-rs6k and -prep, with the
corresponding images to boot on these machines. I guess that the -pmac
vmlinux can also be used on chrp and chrp-rs6k using yaboot.
> My particular problem was, with a beige G3, do I want the
> "powerpc-pmac" flavour, or just the generic "powerpc"? The package
There is no generic -powerpc package anymore, and yes you want the
powerpc-pmac package, altough it provides the powerpc one for backward
compatibility.
> information is vague, and gave me no idea where to look. And how am I
> supposed to decide whether to use a "small" flavour? My hope is that
> some response to this mail will help me file a useful bug report
> against kernel-patch-*-powerpc...
Well, if you could point me what is confusing in the description files,
i will be happy to fix that, but it sounds quite clear to me. It
properly states for which machine each image is (pmacs, chrp, chrp-rs6k
or prep), and i believe that it also mentions the reason for the smp or
normal powerpc flavours. I have to check for the small version, where i
may have missed things though.
> Second, my first try at installing ALSA ran into a problem, helpfully
> pointed out by insmod, that I was using a gcc of inappropriate vintage
> compared to the kernel image. Running "dpkg-deb --info" does not tell
> what gcc version was used to compile a package. How was I supposed to
> know? Should the info for a kernel-image package state what gcc
> version was used to compile it? If this is a bug, whose is it??
What ALSA modules where you installing, from where did you get them, and
how where they built ?
> Third, when I let the debian/rules from the alsa-source package guess
> the kernel version, it guessed "KVERS=2.4.22", resulting in modules
> being install in /lib/modules/2.4.22/alsa/ rather than the correct
> /lib/modules/2.4.22-powerpc/alsa/. This presumably is a bug either in
> alsa-source or in kernel-patch-*-powerpc, but which??
More probably a problem with make-kpkg, i believe. How did you try to
build it ?
But true enough, things are not as neat as they should, i believe that
you could be building the modules with only the kernel-headers, but i
have no idea how this is suppossed to work.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: