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

Re: Compile vanilla 2.6.27 using make-kpkg



2008/10/13 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@ieee.org>:
> On Sun, Oct 12 2008, Adrian Levi wrote:
>
>> I'm having troubles compiling a vanilla 2.6.27 kernel using
>> kernel-package. Looks like there is a new iwl4965 driver and I'd like
>> to try it out.
>>
>> The kernel compiles correctly using the usual toolchain provided with
>> the sources but fails on the packaging part using make-kpkg.
>>
>> The compile process gets all the way to the end and fails with
>> debian/stamp/Install: Is a directory
>> The exact command line I'm using at the top level linux-2.6.27 direcory is:
>> fakeroot make-kpkg --initrd --arch amd64 kernel_image
>
>        Have you tried without the --arch option? with --arch, I think
>  you might be getting into all kinds of cross compilation nastiness. or
>  else try
>  --arch amd64  --cross-compile  -
>
>        manoj


i am also running amd64

i got 2.6.27 running this morning but that's about it.
booted into gnome and didn't really know what to do after that. i used:

kernel source# make menuconfig
(made sure iwl stuff was added etc. saved as .config)
kernel source# fakeroot make-kpkg --revision=custom.1.0 kernel_image
kernel source# dpkg -i /home/user/src/linux-image-2.6.27_custom.1.0_amd64.deb
kernel source# mkinitramfs -o /boot/initrd.img-2.6.27 2.6.27

doublechecked menu.lst and rebooted.

i assumed that the wireless modules were in by default but i couldn't
see anything in the few minutes i've had a look around. (had to go to
work)

i also have no idea if my make-kpg is wrong but that's how it worked for me.

>
> --
> The decision doesn't have to be logical, it is unanimous.
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>


Reply to: