Final Answer Re: Differences between binary images and compiled kernels
--- Silvan <dmmcintyr@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> Configging a kernel is an arduous process of booting
> and then figuring out
> what you got wrong.
Yes, it is. You guessed correctly when you said that
I might have gotten a "bad config" file from the
vendor of the binaries. "Bad" in that it while it was
probably fine for that 2.2.x kernel it was just not
working when used for 2.4.x through the offices of
"make oldconfig". The config made by that just
wouldn't compile and I refused to accept that "make
oldconfig" would give me something bogus.
After fooling with the files produced by "make
oldconfig" by hand for a long time I switched to "make
config" that used the defconfig file that comes with
the binaries. I then spent a long time using the old
command line interface for trying to add the features
that I wanted. Due to being a luddite I resisted
using "make xconfig" for a long time, but I would
higly recommend it as it will prevent you from saying
"yes" to things that will mess up the compile. I
added the Joliet extensions and got the CD file names
out of that 8.3 format.
Even with "make xconfig"'s help I was unable to get a
viable kernel with the fat, vfat, and msdos
filesystems. I have no idea why; those are not
complicated configure options and they are also old
features. Images would be produced but would not
boot... Reading the help file the I noticed "mtool"
which was installed already and just gave up on the
idea of mounting the MS filesystems.
I'm thinking that getting the Winmodem to work might
be a little harder....
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Reply to: