Re: Installing new kernel 2.6.17 on Ultra5
Why dont you try using the backports package, i've tried compiling the kernel
before and it has not worked, but my problem was with Adaptec drivers.
--Roman
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006, John wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just compiled a new kernel for my Ultra5 using Debian's
> kernel-package system.
>
> BootP gets to the point of 'Booting into Linux...' and stops. No error
> message nothing, just halts where it is! If I change vmlinuz to point at the
> old kernel it works fine.
>
> I'm obviously missing something but what?
>
> My / links are:
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 May 28 2005 vmlinuz.old -> boot/vmlinuz-
> 2.4.18-sun4u
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 32 Sep 14 15:39 vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-
> 2.6.17.060914-sun4u
>
> My silo.conf is:
> partition=1
> root=/dev/hda1
> timeout=100
> image=1/vmlinuz
> label=linux
> read-only
>
> My /boot is:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 848101 Sep 14 15:23 System.map-2.6.17.060914-sun4u
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1 Jul 26 2005 boot -> .
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 29349 Sep 14 14:08 config-2.6.17.060914-sun4u
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1 Jul 26 2005 etc -> .
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024 Jun 21 12:57 fd.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 512 Jun 21 12:57 first.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024 Jun 21 12:57 generic.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 692 Jun 21 12:57 ieee32.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6928 Jun 21 12:57 isofs.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7680 May 28 2005 old.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 62976 Jul 28 09:45 second.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 78 Feb 2 2006 silo.conf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 60829 Jun 21 12:57 silotftp.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 512 Jun 21 12:57 ultra.b
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1379575 May 28 2005 vmlinuz-2.4.18-sun4u
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1452906 Sep 14 15:23 vmlinuz-2.6.17.060914-sun4u
>
> and /etc/fstab is:
> /dev/hda1 / ext3 errors=remount-ro 0 1
> /dev/hda2 none swap sw 0 0
> proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
> /dev/fd0 /floppy auto user,noauto 0 0
> /dev/cdrom /cdrom iso9660 ro,user,noauto 0 0
>
> If you need any other info to help, please let me know.
>
> TIA
>
> John
Reply to: