Differences between binary images and compiled kernels
I have two kernels on my system, one I bought and
installed from CD's: 2.2.20-idepci, and the other is
2.4.27 that was compiled from sources from kernel.org.
I'm having some hardware issues that I was confident
could be handled by installing modules, but now I'm
not so sure. Close inspection of the boot logs show
significant divergences between the way the these two
kernels handle hardware. My questions are these:
1) How did the seller of my original binary kernel
compile it to be specific to certain hardware?
2) Is there any set of modules out there that will
make up for these difference?
RE question 1, if the answer is just in standard
configuring why did the "make oldconfig" not work and
leave many things out? Now, one of the things I noted
was a website and credit given to an individual for
some code...is there anyway for me to recompile to
2.4.x with things like that inseerted? Certainly the
basic proceedure that I followed doesn't give one the
opportunity to do this.
RE question 2; wasn't this sort of situation the
reason modules were introduced? And aren't kernels
becoming "more modularized"? And if all that is true
should I try another recompile to 2.6.x and see if
there are some advances that will fix my problems?
Thanks,
ejd
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Reply to: