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

Re: no modules after kernel recompile



>>>>> "DK" == Denzil Kelly <cyberonyx1@yahoo.com> writes:
    DK>  Thanx, this worked. My NIC was recognized and everything works
    DK> fine.  However I did have another question. When I was compiling
    DK> the kernel, I proceeded as follows: make xconfig make dep make
    DK> clean make bzImage make modules make modules_install
    DK> 
    DK> make bzImage quit several times before completing. It would quit
    DK> in various places, and report an error(signal 4 or siganal 11 if
    DK> I remember correctly).  The exact same thing happened with make
    DK> modules. I was wondering if you might be able to shed any light
    DK> on this. Also is the above procedure the best way to compile a
    DK> kernel in debian? I noticed that you made reference to make-kpkg
    DK> which wasn't familiar with.
    DK> 

The signal errors are usually indicative of hardware problems like:

(1) bad/faulty hardware, esp. RAM
(2) an overclocked CPU that isn't very stable

When I overclocked my Celeron300A to 450 at the default voltage, I would
get lots of signal 11 errors during kernel compiling. My CPU wasn't very
stable at 450MHz.

As for kernel building, using make-kpkg is so much easier than the 5-6
step process you described above. Since I switched to Debian, I have
always compiled kernels using make-kpkg and have never missed the 'old'
way of building kernels. Its one of Debian's little known advantages
compared to say apt-get.

You will want to install the kernel-package package:

apt-get install kernel-package

and then read the following document to get started:

zmore /usr/doc/kernel-package/README.gz

With kernel-package, the procedure is usually as simple as:

make xconfig
(select whatever kernel options you want)
make-kpkg clean
fakeroot make-kpkg --revision=786:phoenix-custom-2.2.17-1.0 kernel_image
dpkg -i ../kernel-image-2.2.17_phoenix-custom-2.2.17-1.0_i386.deb
(reboot)

-- 
Salman Ahmed
ssahmed AT pathcom DOT com



Reply to: