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

Re: Building modules for Debian sparc kernels



On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:28:19PM +0100, Arne Nordmark wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> When building kernel modules (specifically the OpenAFS module) to match
> the kernels in the Debian archive for i386 and sparc, some questions
> came up.
> 
> For the i386 architecture, there is a separate kernel-headers package
> for each kernel flavour, so building using these should produce working
> modules. On sparc, there is only one kernel-headers package (for the
> sun4cmd subarch?). Is building a kernel module say for sun4u-smp with
> these headers guarateed to work? If not, one should probably have to get
> the correct version of the kernel-source pachage (but this may have been
> replaced in the archive) and the kernel-image source package (for
> patches), so that way is not so desirable.

No, there is one kernel-headers package for sparc64 and sparc32 (both
sets are in the same package).

I do not suggest using the headers to build modules. Use the whole
source.

> Another thing is that the kernel-image packages for sparc has the
> sub-architecture in the package name, but not in the /lib/modules path.
> The variables passed by make-kpkg to build a kernel module package does
> not seem to be enough to inform about this situation, so the buildt
> package will either miss the sun4xxx in the package name and kernel
> dependencies, or have it in the /lib/modules path, dpeneding of how
> make-kpkg is called, so in either case the .deb file will have to edited
> by hand. For i386, there is no problem, as the flavour is present both
> in the package name and the /lib/modules path.

You'll have to use the same method as the kernel-image-sparc-2.x source
does.


Ben

-- 
 .----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/                   Ben Collins    --    Debian GNU/Linux                  \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '
 `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'



Reply to: