Re: building 2.6.35
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Alexander Samad <alex@samad.com.au> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am looking at how to build 2.6.35 the debian way so I end up with
> deb packages. the current situation is 2.6.35 is avail in experimental
> (>?!) with out a linux-kbuild packages - last time I asked about this
> it was because they only wanted people who understood how to build to
> play with the new linux-image. what ever the reason thats cool. I
> would like to install and play with the new kernel and I need headers.
> So
>
> I have had a look here
> http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPackage,
> there is a section on building linux-kbuild - but guess what the svn
> co downloads the 2.6.34 version :(
>
> I found this http://www.linuxconfig.org/building-kernels-the-debian-way
> - the comment down the bottom with the script - looks promising. going
> to give this a try.
>
> sudo CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=4 make-kpkg --initrd kernel_image
> kernel_headers modules_image <- this seems todo most of the work
>
> So my thoughts were to start out with .config from 2.6.34 make
> olconfig it and then customise it from there.
>
>
> I seem to remember you could some how get the src package for
> linux-kbuild of experimental and thus just build it from there
>
> Any help comments would be appreciated
>
> Alex
I have been fumbling my way though building custom kernels on debian
using this guide http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/Kernel.htm.
Though, I have been using the .config from the stock 2.6.32 kernel and
customising it to fit, as when I tried to make my own from scratch it
didn’t boot.
Regards,
Angus
ps, I have been having a weird bug with make-kpkg where, after
building kernel headers and installing them as well as the image, the
/lib/modules/<kernel version name>/build symlink has been pointing to
the linux src dir that I used to build the kernel rather than the
headers dir in /usr/src/linux-headers-<kernel version name>, just a
heads up to watch out for that, I havent bug reported it yet as im not
sure what the bug is with, as it worked fine to start with!
Reply to: