Re: building a custom kernel
"Ivan E. Moore II" <email@example.com> writes:
> I'm trying to figure out the proper procedures for building a sparc64 kernel.
> I've downloaded the 2.2.9 kernel source and was in hope of building it
> using the 64 bit features of the ultrasparc.
Hmm, they must have changed this in the 2.2.9 kernel. This didn't
happen with earlier versions. (The kernel has always been 64 bit, 32
bit kernels won't run on UltraSparc machines.)
> I installed the egcs64 package and notice I now have a
> sparc64-linux-gcc but there is no -ld, ar,etc...like the Makefile
> for the kernel expects. I've tried the make-kpkg process as well
> and it isn't happy that these are missing as well.
> My question I guess is is it ok to change the Makefile to just use ld, ar,
> etc... instead of sparc64-linux-ld, etc...???
All of the binutils programs contain support for both sparc64 and
sparc, so this shouldn't be a problem, but I haven't tried a 2.2.9
> I'm extremly green when it comes to linux on sparcs and I'm still
> trying to learn my way around it all...and sparc 64 is green as
> well. I understand that there are still several pieces left to be
> done in the 64bit arena before all this will work the way it's
> supposed to, but I remember reading in the archives that someone has
> compiled a 2.2.9/8/something kernel successfully and I just want to
> find out how. :)
2.2.7 and 2.2.8 should work find, I'm not sure why 2.2.9 is expecting
> <trying to get sound and all working on this puppy).
> I've also noticed that the package build process doesn't like (at
> least on my ultra) links...dh_fixperms and move_files complains/dies
> when they try moving/changing permissions on links saying the file
> doesn't exist (undocumented man pages kill dh_fixperms). Is this
> something I'm doing/done or is this just one of the bugs in the
Are you using "fakeroot"? There are some known problems with fakeroot.