Greetings all,
A little upset because of some very rude people in IRC, on freenode.net. That accused me of trolling and made it so I can't say anything in the channel. More on that later.
Here is the deal, I am in the process of installing Gentoo on a AMD64 server. I messed up and bought the wrong SATAII Raid card, Adaptec 142SA. Which only has binary drivers for RH, SuSE, and UL. 32bit and 64bit modules.
Now having tried all kinds of kernels. I started looking for RH kernel sources. Which is basically what CentOS provides. I started with the
kernel-2.6.9-22.EL.src.rpm
After messing with that for days, patches and all. I decided to give the kernel-devel rpms a go. So I downloaded
kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64.rpm
Used rpm2targz, and converted them into tarballs which I unpacked. I then moved the sources from usr/lib/kernel, entered the kernel source dir, configured and compiled fine. With the i686 version.
When I attempt to do the same with the x86_64 one I get
wlt 2.6.9-22.EL # make bzImage ARCH=x86_64 V=1 if /usr/bin/env test ! /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL -ef /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL; then \ /bin/sh /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL/scripts/mkmakefile \ /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL 2 6 \ > /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL/Makefile; \ fi CHK include/linux/version.h CHK include/asm-x86_64/offset.h make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=scripts/basic make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=scripts make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=scripts/mod make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=init make[1]: *** No rule to make target `init/main.o', needed by `init/built-in.o'. Stop
Now I came across this posting http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1110
And have heard from others that the preferred way to build RH kernels now is to rebuild an rpm using the src rpm. Which I have never done, but I have been making custom RH kernels since 6.2 or so. Always using the kernel-devel package?
Now on IRC my main question was has anyone built a custom x86_64 kernel? I believe the reason I was booted, because I asked the same person (kbsingh) that question 3 times. Because they never answered, which leads me to believe they have not. Instead they called me a troll and made it so I can't say anything in the channel. Very rude and totally unprofessional. I thought CentOS was a enterprise community distro. Amazing to find that kind of attitude.
Furthermore they were questioning what I did with the kernel-devel to build a custom kernel in the first place. Since they claimed it to be only headers not a full source? So I provided links and etc.
http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.tar.gz http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/working-2.6.9-11.EL.tar.gz http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/2.6.9-11.EL.config.working
Now I have been downloading all rpms from http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/
I really need to build a 2.6.9.11.EL x86_64 kernel. I have a working i686 one, links above. But the kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64.rpm
Seems to be missing stuff that is in the i686 one. Like if you do not properly change dir name from 2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64 to 2.6.9-22.EL you can't compile asm-offsets. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-April/004499.html
However that was not a problem with the i686 sources? The asm-offsets file is provide in i686 kernel-dev rpm and src rpm. The missing x86_64 stuff is not in either kernel-dev or src rpms. Interesting enough, all the missing stuff exists by default with Gentoo sources.
I am really trying to avoid rebuilding a rpm. That would require me to install and setup a CentOS or RHEL box. Which seems a bit much just to build a custom kernel. Considering the kernel will be used for another distro.
Please anyone running CentOS with a custom x86_64 kernel, I would love to hear the processes. Now reason I am posting to dev list and not users, is it seems users are discouraged to build their own kernels as opposed to developers. Who have to make the resulting rpms as it is.
Thoughts, comments, and things of a constructive nature are all greatly appreciated. Hopefully I will not find the same attitude here as in the irc channel.
That type of behavior would keep someone like my who does not run or use CentOS, totally away from it. Gentoo people care less if I ask questions about building a custom centos kernel for Gentoo. Not sure why CentOS people would have a problem with my questions. Considering I am not asking anything about Gentoo, or that aspect of it.
Just how to get a custom x86_64 kernel built using CentOS 2.6.9-22 sources.
Thanks a million.
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
And have heard from others that the preferred way to build RH kernels now is to rebuild an rpm using the src rpm. Which I have never done, but I have been making custom RH kernels since 6.2 or so. Always using the kernel-devel package?
There is a process for getting the patched kernel source out of the .src.rpm (although you'll probably need a Centos system, or one in VMWare/Xen/etc)
http://www.pendragon.org/mywiki/KernelSource
If you like I could probably make you a tarball of that and provide it for you.
-Mike
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 11:48 -0700, Michael Best wrote:
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
And have heard from others that the preferred way to build RH kernels now is to rebuild an rpm using the src rpm. Which I have never done, but I have been making custom RH kernels since 6.2 or so. Always using the kernel-devel package?
There is a process for getting the patched kernel source out of the .src.rpm (although you'll probably need a Centos system, or one in VMWare/Xen/etc)
Yeah, I was starting to think I might have to do that.
http://www.pendragon.org/mywiki/KernelSource
If you like I could probably make you a tarball of that and provide it for you.
That would be great if you can. If you want I can send you the config, if you want to make resulting binary? Because it's a two fold deal. Here I only have the one AMD64 machine, and must cross compile on a 32bit proc to build a 64bit kernel.
So if I got the route of setting up a CentOS box I will have to do it on x86, and make sure it has a cross compiler for x86_64.
Might see if I can find a local CentOS user to help with the compiling a custom x86_64 kernel. If I had the $ I would pay some for the their time. But then again if I had the $ I would ditch the Adaptec 1420sa for a 3Ware or Hight Point solution that has open source drivers ;)
Thanks for the reply and offer to help. It's greatly appreciated, and if I can return the favor will definitely do so.
On 2/3/06, William L. Thomson Jr. wlt@obsidian-studios.com wrote:
Greetings all,
A little upset because of some very rude people in IRC, on freenode.net. That accused me of trolling and made it so I can't say anything in the channel. More on that later.
No. No more on that later. It was deserved. You failed to provide proper documentation of what you were doing and on what system in addition to not following the recommendations of the channel moderators. Also, the irc channel is for centos support, not for supporting custom kernels on gentoo.
Here is the deal, I am in the process of installing Gentoo on a AMD64 server. I messed up and bought the wrong SATAII Raid card, Adaptec 142SA. Which only has binary drivers for RH, SuSE, and UL. 32bit and 64bit modules.
Now having tried all kinds of kernels. I started looking for RH kernel sources. Which is basically what CentOS provides. I started with the
kernel-2.6.9-22.EL.src.rpm
Assuming you really want to continue with this monstrosity, this is where you want to go, but there are literally 700 patches to the rhel/centos kernel. You'll need these for the kernel to build properly, at which point it will probably be incompatible with gentoo because of rhel specific requirements or expectations.
After messing with that for days, patches and all. I decided to give the kernel-devel rpms a go. So I downloaded
kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64.rpm
These are only the kernel headers. They won't help you.
Used rpm2targz, and converted them into tarballs which I unpacked. I then moved the sources from usr/lib/kernel, entered the kernel source dir, configured and compiled fine. With the i686 version.
I really doubt this. The devel packages aren't all the source. It's just what you need to build against the kernel, not to build a new kernel.
When I attempt to do the same with the x86_64 one I get
wlt 2.6.9-22.EL # make bzImage ARCH=x86_64 V=1 if /usr/bin/env test ! /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL -ef /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL; then \ /bin/sh /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL/scripts/mkmakefile \ /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL 2 6 \ > /usr/src/2.6.9-22.EL/Makefile; \ fi CHK include/linux/version.h CHK include/asm-x86_64/offset.h make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=scripts/basic make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=scripts make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=scripts/mod make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=init make[1]: *** No rule to make target `init/main.o', needed by `init/built-in.o'. Stop
Your gentoo build system isn't what the rhel kernel expects. This isn't surprising.
And have heard from others that the preferred way to build RH kernels now is to rebuild an rpm using the src rpm. Which I have never done, but I have been making custom RH kernels since 6.2 or so. Always using the kernel-devel package?
No. The kernel-devel package is new. It used to be kernel-source
Now on IRC my main question was has anyone built a custom x86_64 kernel? I believe the reason I was booted, because I asked the same person (kbsingh) that question 3 times. Because they never answered, which leads me to believe they have not. Instead they called me a troll and made it so I can't say anything in the channel. Very rude and totally unprofessional. I thought CentOS was a enterprise community distro. Amazing to find that kind of attitude.
I keep logs of the channel activity. What you were asking is typical of the trolls we get. You're not paying anything for the distribution, and you're not RUNNING the distribution, you're building its kernel outside of its environment. I fail to see a driving need for us to offer help for that.
Furthermore they were questioning what I did with the kernel-devel to build a custom kernel in the first place. Since they claimed it to be only headers not a full source? So I provided links and etc.
We know what kernel-devel is. You can't build a kernel from it.
http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.tar.gz http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/working-2.6.9-11.EL.tar.gz http://dev.obsidian-studios.com/2.6.9-11.EL.config.working
Now I have been downloading all rpms from http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/
I really need to build a 2.6.9.11.EL x86_64 kernel. I have a working i686 one, links above. But the kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64.rpm
These are two seperate kernel versions. You can't expect to mix and match between the two. 2.6.9.11 has been updated for security reasons. Running it means you'll be running a kernel with vulnerabilities.
Seems to be missing stuff that is in the i686 one. Like if you do not properly change dir name from 2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64 to 2.6.9-22.EL you can't compile asm-offsets. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-April/004499.html
Are you using the same build environment the kernel is expecting? Have you applied all the patches. Are you using actual kernel source instead of the -devel packages?
However that was not a problem with the i686 sources? The asm-offsets file is provide in i686 kernel-dev rpm and src rpm. The missing x86_64 stuff is not in either kernel-dev or src rpms. Interesting enough, all the missing stuff exists by default with Gentoo sources.
Have you applied the patches. It's possible that the patches create the additional files you need. or that somewhere through this nightmare of a build process something failed silently or was excluded.
I am really trying to avoid rebuilding a rpm. That would require me to install and setup a CentOS or RHEL box. Which seems a bit much just to build a custom kernel. Considering the kernel will be used for another distro.
You should really be seeking help from within the gentoo community rather than trying to piece two drastically different distros together. This will only end badly for you. If it's running on another distro, why again should we assist your efforts?
Please anyone running CentOS with a custom x86_64 kernel, I would love to hear the processes. Now reason I am posting to dev list and not users, is it seems users are discouraged to build their own kernels as opposed to developers. Who have to make the resulting rpms as it is.
Our build process won't work for you. Our build environments are different from yours. Seek your assistance in the proper channels please.
Thoughts, comments, and things of a constructive nature are all greatly appreciated. Hopefully I will not find the same attitude here as in the irc channel.
The resistance you encountered via irc was warranted. Why should we take on supporting other distros?
That type of behavior would keep someone like my who does not run or use CentOS, totally away from it. Gentoo people care less if I ask questions about building a custom centos kernel for Gentoo. Not sure why CentOS people would have a problem with my questions. Considering I am not asking anything about Gentoo, or that aspect of it.
Sure you are. You're asking how to build our kernel on gentoo. You're not running our distro. We don't have problems with questions that apply to centos. Yours applies to gentoo. Asking a gentoo question in #centos is akin to asking for a mcdonalds happy meal at a pizza shop.
Just how to get a custom x86_64 kernel built using CentOS 2.6.9-22 sources.
I doubt this will work for you. Honestly. Trade in your hardware for something that works with your preferred distro instead of attempting this travesty. It'll save your sanity.
-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'' Benjamin Franklin 1775
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 14:12 -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 2/3/06, William L. Thomson Jr. wlt@obsidian-studios.com wrote:
Greetings all,
A little upset because of some very rude people in IRC, on freenode.net. That accused me of trolling and made it so I can't say anything in the channel. More on that later.
No. No more on that later. It was deserved. You failed to provide proper documentation of what you were doing and on what system in addition to not following the recommendations of the channel moderators.
Which could have been politely mentioned instead of silencing and later booting.
Also, the irc channel is for centos support, not for supporting custom kernels on gentoo.
Well I am asking questions specific to the centos kernel compilation using CentOS provided sources. Anytime I mentioned gentoo people got upset, and I believe that really was the reasoning for the actions.
Also that I was differing on the package only being headers. Because if it was only headers, I would not have been able to make the kernel I made.
Assuming you really want to continue with this monstrosity, this is where you want to go, but there are literally 700 patches to the rhel/centos kernel. You'll need these for the kernel to build properly, at which point it will probably be incompatible with gentoo because of rhel specific requirements or expectations.
Yes, and seems they were properly applied in the kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm. Since when I patched and compiled a kernel using the src.rpm, I had nothing but problems. First attempt using the kernel dev rpm worked. So I was then trying to go to the next step and get a x86_64 kernel built.
After messing with that for days, patches and all. I decided to give the kernel-devel rpms a go. So I downloaded
kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64.rpm
These are only the kernel headers. They won't help you.
You keep saying that, but they do contain a full source. I made a kernel with this one kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm. As offered on IRC, I can do each command again, and pastebin the output.
I also provided links to the kernel I built using it, and the config? So FACT is it's much more than headers, and does contain a complete source, at least for i686.
I really doubt this. The devel packages aren't all the source. It's just what you need to build against the kernel, not to build a new kernel.
Stop doubting, look for yourself, or attempt for yourself. rpm install the package. Then move the sources to /usr/src. Copy my config into that dir, and build a kernel. Just like I did.
Your gentoo build system isn't what the rhel kernel expects. This isn't surprising.
Possibly, more than likely stuff is missing. And I confirmed that by fetching a vanilla 2.6.9 kernel from kernel.org. Same problems in that as in the src.rpm and kernel-devel rpm. However the missing stuff is supposed to be within the kernel sources directory structure, not available in the system.
No. The kernel-devel package is new. It used to be kernel-source
Yes, and I am using it as I always have. But I am aware the recommended way has changed.
I keep logs of the channel activity. What you were asking is typical of the trolls we get.
I am not a troll, and had legitimate questions, one can choose to answer or ignore. Never got an answer of it someone had successfully compiled a x86_64 kernel using CentOS sources.
You're not paying anything for the distribution, and you're not RUNNING the distribution, you're building its kernel outside of its environment. I fail to see a driving need for us to offer help for that.
Neither am I paying on the gentoo side. I have asked way more CentOS/RH specific questions in the Gentoo forum, and get no flack. They are not claiming to be an enterprise community distro. Like CentOS, so there should be a higher tolerance on CentOS. Seems there is not on the channel and allot of bias attitudes.
Instead of focusing on actually help. Which one does not have to, the moderators could have just ignored. Not like I was interrupting other conversations, being rude, or using foul language.
Guess the irc channel is a dictatorship, with little room for freedom of speech and choice.
Furthermore they were questioning what I did with the kernel-devel to build a custom kernel in the first place. Since they claimed it to be only headers not a full source? So I provided links and etc.
We know what kernel-devel is. You can't build a kernel from it.
For the last time. I did. If you keep insisting it's impossible I will gladly reproduce steps, and provide bash_history. Or do it yourself and see. I am not lying or making this up. No point in that?
These are two seperate kernel versions. You can't expect to mix and match between the two. 2.6.9.11 has been updated for security reasons. Running it means you'll be running a kernel with vulnerabilities.
Um, I am suing a 2.6.9-22 kernel just renaming it to 2.6.9-11 so the binary driver will not bitch on modprobe or insmod. Look at the config file and you will see I tag on the local revision.
However I have mentioned the security reasons to Adaptec, who only offers binaries ATM for 2.6.9-11.EL
Are you using the same build environment the kernel is expecting? Have you applied all the patches. Are you using actual kernel source instead of the -devel packages?
Tried the actual sources had patching problems. The kernel-devel package was properly patched, and worked perfectly in x86 i686. Just not x86_64.
Have you applied the patches. It's possible that the patches create the additional files you need. or that somewhere through this nightmare of a build process something failed silently or was excluded.
Actually I had the exact problem I am having by a particular patch. Because I ran into it before when applying patches to the src rpm kernel sources. I have considered using the src.rpm to reverse that patch out of the x86_64 kernel-devel rpm. So I am leaning more to a patch causing the problem than not. I find it hard to believe a vanilla 2.6.9 kernel source would not compile a x86_64 kernel
You should really be seeking help from within the gentoo community rather than trying to piece two drastically different distros together. This will only end badly for you. If it's running on another distro, why again should we assist your efforts?
I have, and they are doing their best to help. FYI, allot of the missing stuff is there in the Gentoo kernel sources, and current vanilla ones. So the problem is most deff CentOS/RH specific. So they can't help, thus me starting by asking if anyone has build a custom x86_64 kernel on centos.
Our build process won't work for you. Our build environments are different from yours. Seek your assistance in the proper channels please.
Building a kernel in general relies very little on system, aside from gcc, glibc, binutils, and kernel headers. Possible on the kernel headers part? But most of what is needed is usually within the kernel sources. System kernel headers are usually for other apps/drivers outside of the kernel sources. To have access to the needed .h files to compile. But most do it against the source of the version of the kernel you are running.
The resistance you encountered via irc was warranted. Why should we take on supporting other distros?
No and I am not asking anything Gentoo specific. I have seen others running CentOS having similar problems. I was not asking for Gentoo support. Only if someone had successfully built the a x86_84 kernel, adn their steps.
Sure you are. You're asking how to build our kernel on gentoo. You're not running our distro.
The basics of compiling a kernel are not distro specific. And all I am asking about is the basics. Not the distros way of going about it.
We don't have problems with questions that apply to centos. Yours applies to gentoo. Asking a gentoo question in #centos is akin to asking for a mcdonalds happy meal at a pizza shop.
I am not, I a asking why stuff is missing from CentOS sources? And what others have done to get around that?
Just how to get a custom x86_64 kernel built using CentOS 2.6.9-22 sources.
I doubt this will work for you. Honestly. Trade in your hardware for something that works with your preferred distro instead of attempting this travesty. It'll save your sanity.
That's the easy way out, and atm do not have the $ otherwise I would. But where there is will there is a way. Thus me making the progress I did with i686. Not just need to do the same for x86_64.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:22:19PM -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. enlightened us:
These are only the kernel headers. They won't help you.
You keep saying that, but they do contain a full source. I made a kernel with this one kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm. As offered on IRC, I can do each command again, and pastebin the output.
No, they really don't. I just listed the files in a kernel-devel rpm and the only .c files are in the scripts directory. It's pretty hard to compile the kernel without any source.
I also provided links to the kernel I built using it, and the config? So FACT is it's much more than headers, and does contain a complete source, at least for i686.
Try again.
I really doubt this. The devel packages aren't all the source. It's just what you need to build against the kernel, not to build a new kernel.
Stop doubting, look for yourself, or attempt for yourself. rpm install the package. Then move the sources to /usr/src. Copy my config into that dir, and build a kernel. Just like I did.
The rpm installs to /usr/src/kernels/$VERSION
I suggest you browse that directory again and note the lack of .c files.
I am not a troll, and had legitimate questions, one can choose to answer or ignore. Never got an answer of it someone had successfully compiled a x86_64 kernel using CentOS sources.
What do you think people run?
You're not paying anything for the distribution, and you're not RUNNING the distribution, you're building its kernel outside of its environment. I fail to see a driving need for us to offer help for that.
Neither am I paying on the gentoo side. I have asked way more CentOS/RH specific questions in the Gentoo forum, and get no flack. They are not claiming to be an enterprise community distro. Like CentOS, so there should be a higher tolerance on CentOS. Seems there is not on the channel and allot of bias attitudes.
Instead of focusing on actually help. Which one does not have to, the moderators could have just ignored. Not like I was interrupting other conversations, being rude, or using foul language.
Guess the irc channel is a dictatorship, with little room for freedom of speech and choice.
No, you were asking off-topic questions. Just because you were bastardizing source code from CentOS doesn't mean we need to support it. Why don't you go ask in #redhat and see how it goes over. Better yet, open a bugzilla entry.
For the last time. I did. If you keep insisting it's impossible I will gladly reproduce steps, and provide bash_history. Or do it yourself and see. I am not lying or making this up. No point in that?
See above. Do an rpm -qpl kernel-devel-foo.rpm. Look for .c files.
These are two seperate kernel versions. You can't expect to mix and match between the two. 2.6.9.11 has been updated for security reasons. Running it means you'll be running a kernel with vulnerabilities.
Um, I am suing a 2.6.9-22 kernel just renaming it to 2.6.9-11 so the binary driver will not bitch on modprobe or insmod. Look at the config file and you will see I tag on the local revision.
However I have mentioned the security reasons to Adaptec, who only offers binaries ATM for 2.6.9-11.EL
Are you using the same build environment the kernel is expecting? Have you applied all the patches. Are you using actual kernel source instead of the -devel packages?
Tried the actual sources had patching problems. The kernel-devel package was properly patched, and worked perfectly in x86 i686. Just not x86_64.
Have you applied the patches. It's possible that the patches create the additional files you need. or that somewhere through this nightmare of a build process something failed silently or was excluded.
Actually I had the exact problem I am having by a particular patch. Because I ran into it before when applying patches to the src rpm kernel sources. I have considered using the src.rpm to reverse that patch out of the x86_64 kernel-devel rpm. So I am leaning more to a patch causing the problem than not. I find it hard to believe a vanilla 2.6.9 kernel source would not compile a x86_64 kernel
You should really be seeking help from within the gentoo community rather than trying to piece two drastically different distros together. This will only end badly for you. If it's running on another distro, why again should we assist your efforts?
I have, and they are doing their best to help. FYI, allot of the missing stuff is there in the Gentoo kernel sources, and current vanilla ones. So the problem is most deff CentOS/RH specific. So they can't help, thus me starting by asking if anyone has build a custom x86_64 kernel on centos.
CentOS merely takes what RH gives us. If you are so convinced the problem lies there, take it up with them.
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 15:34 -0500, Matt Hyclak wrote:
No, they really don't. I just listed the files in a kernel-devel rpm and the only .c files are in the scripts directory. It's pretty hard to compile the kernel without any source.
Try again.
From my .bash_history file
rpm2targz kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm tar -xzf kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.tar.gz mv usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/ ./ cd 2.6.9-22.EL-i686 cp ../2.6.9-11.EL.config.working .config make bzImage modules > /dev/null
Interesting now though it fails at the same point as the x86_64 on now, and did not before. Could have to do with before I had it in /usr/src and atm it's in my Desktop home dir.
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `init/main.o', needed by `init/built-in.o'. Stop. make: *** [init] Error 2
Same error I was getting with x86_64, and now am getting it with the i686 one as well. Now I did look around and you all are correct stuff is missing like all the .c files? So now I have to figure out what rpm I used, but I know it was not the src one because I have that here as well. It was in a rpm, and I did pull it out of a rpm?
Ah crap, I think it was the regular kernel rpm and not the devel one? Does it have full sources? I started with the src.rpm but after all the problems.
Very sorry, on the package confusion. Totally my fault, my bad. However I know it was not using the src.rpm, and now have ruled out the kernel-devel one. Guess it must have been a binary kernel rpm with sources?
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:56:37PM -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. enlightened us:
Very sorry, on the package confusion. Totally my fault, my bad. However I know it was not using the src.rpm, and now have ruled out the kernel-devel one. Guess it must have been a binary kernel rpm with sources?
Nope, all that's included in the kernel-version.rpm is the contents of /boot and /lib/modules/version/*.ko
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
After messing with that for days, patches and all. I decided to give the kernel-devel rpms a go. So I downloaded
kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.x86_64.rpm
These are only the kernel headers. They won't help you.
You keep saying that, but they do contain a full source. I made a kernel with this one kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm. As offered on IRC, I can do each command again, and pastebin the output.
You are mistaken. See for yourself:
[sandeen@stout tmp]$ wget http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/4.2/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS/kernel-devel-2.6.9-... --14:34:22-- http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/4.2/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS/kernel-devel-2.6.9-... => `kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm' Length: 3,778,931 (3.6M) [application/x-rpm]
100%[=========================================================================================>] 3,778,931 485.99K/s ETA 00:00
14:34:29 (549.58 KB/s) - `kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm' saved [3778931/3778931]
[sandeen@stout tmp]$ rpm -qpl kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm | grep \.c$ warning: kernel-devel-2.6.9-22.EL.i686.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 443e1821 /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/basic/docproc.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/basic/fixdep.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/basic/split-include.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/bin2c.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/binoffset.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/conmakehash.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/genksyms/genksyms.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/genksyms/keywords.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/genksyms/lex.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/genksyms/parse.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kallsyms.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/conf.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/confdata.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/expr.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/images.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/kconfig_load.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/lex.zconf.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/mconf.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/menu.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/checklist.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/inputbox.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/lxdialog.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/menubox.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/msgbox.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/textbox.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/util.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/lxdialog/yesno.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/mod/empty.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/mod/file2alias.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/mod/mk_elfconfig.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/mod/modpost.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/mod/sumversion.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/modsign/mod-extract.c /usr/src/kernels/2.6.9-22.EL-i686/scripts/pnmtologo.c [sandeen@stout tmp]$
That is not a full linux kernel, I'm sorry. You'll need a bit more source code. About 8000 more C files or so....
-Eric
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: .
Guess the irc channel is a dictatorship, with little room for freedom of speech and choice.
oh, you went there. US constitutional protections only apply to regulating Gov't limitations of free speech. Nowhere does the Constitution regulate how a irc channel run by a private entity or individual. Therefore those things run by said entities can be regulated as the entities see fit. Don't like it? Move elsewhere..that is the extent of your rights and theirs.
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 15:01, William Warren wrote:
Move elsewhere..that is the extent of your rights and theirs.
It may not be a strict requirement of the GPL but I think I've seen recommendations about packaging the source and documentation so as to make it easy to rebuild, modify and use in other ways. Seems odd that anyone involved in redistributing GPL'd material would be so against that spirit...
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 15:01, William Warren wrote:
Move elsewhere..that is the extent of your rights and theirs.
It may not be a strict requirement of the GPL but I think I've seen recommendations about packaging the source and documentation so as to make it easy to rebuild, modify and use in other ways. Seems odd that anyone involved in redistributing GPL'd material would be so against that spirit...
Les,
I am not sure what your point is ?
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:04, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 15:01, William Warren wrote:
Move elsewhere..that is the extent of your rights and theirs.
It may not be a strict requirement of the GPL but I think I've seen recommendations about packaging the source and documentation so as to make it easy to rebuild, modify and use in other ways. Seems odd that anyone involved in redistributing GPL'd material would be so against that spirit...
Les,
I am not sure what your point is ?
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
Nope, hit the nail right on the head :)
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
Nope, hit the nail right on the head :)
I dont recall you being a part of the conversation that took place on irc.
as far as the material of the conversation is concerned, the emails on this thread ( I am sure you would have read them ) have already cleared that up.
Karanbir Singh wrote:
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
Nope, hit the nail right on the head :)
I dont recall you being a part of the conversation that took place on irc.
Just to clarify : conversation amongst the ops
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:31 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
Nope, hit the nail right on the head :)
I dont recall you being a part of the conversation that took place on irc.
Got silenced once, and then kicked from channel a second time. The first time either has happened. So I could not participate :)
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:31 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
Nope, hit the nail right on the head :)
I dont recall you being a part of the conversation that took place on irc.
Got silenced once, and then kicked from channel a second time. The first time either has happened. So I could not participate :)
a second time ? you came back for more :))
ok, end of thread.
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:49 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
a second time ? you came back for more :))
Well shortly after I was silenced someone asked a question about an error building a custom kernel. One of the exact errors that I ran into. So I wanted to get more info on that, and never really did.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 16:04, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 15:01, William Warren wrote:
Move elsewhere..that is the extent of your rights and theirs.
It may not be a strict requirement of the GPL but I think I've seen recommendations about packaging the source and documentation so as to make it easy to rebuild, modify and use in other ways. Seems odd that anyone involved in redistributing GPL'd material would be so against that spirit...
Les,
I am not sure what your point is ?
I thought I detected a certain animosity toward someone trying to rebuild the centos-packaged kernel in a different environment. Maybe I misinterpreted things...
naw, we tried to help him on IRC, most people there are very helpful.
the problem we had was that conversation with this guy was heading up the troll-scale so fast and so high, that it really just regressed into noise.
he was pointed at the .src.rpm 5 times, but his mindset of building out of kernel-devel instead was hard to shake off ( he carried that with him into the mailing list ). I recall being pointed at a few kernel tarballs that had been built out of this said kernel-devel package even! looking into one package it turned out to be the kernel built on Johnny's machines.
*shrug*
its a no issue as far as i am concerned, this guy does not know about centos or how its setup, we can try and tell him - whatever info he takes away with him, is upto him. but if he is going to be a problem and troll, he is going to get the +q treatment, just as anyone else does.
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:34 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
the problem we had was that conversation with this guy was heading up the troll-scale so fast and so high, that it really just regressed into noise.
Hardly anyone was on the channel at the time. Also once I was silenced someone commented on the channel being quite? Not sure what your definition of trolling, but I was not?
he was pointed at the .src.rpm 5 times, but his mindset of building out of kernel-devel instead was hard to shake off ( he carried that with him into the mailing list ).
My bad already stated. I did build a kernel using something other than the src.rpm. I mistakenly though it was the kernel-devel package. Now I am thinking it was a actual kernel rpm. Since I know it was not src.rpm. I had to many problems with that.
I recall being pointed at a few kernel tarballs that had been built out of this said kernel-devel package even!
My bad.
looking into one package it turned out to be the kernel built on Johnny's machines.
I still state my original question on IRC has yet to answered in IRC or mailing list. I was looking for someone who has built a custom kernel for x86_64 on CentOS. If that was not you or anyone else in conversation. Everything that was discussed was irrelevant to the question originally asked.
its a no issue as far as i am concerned, this guy does not know about centos or how its setup, we can try and tell him - whatever info he takes away with him, is upto him.
I used to use solely RH up to the RH9 -> Fedora -> RHEL thing. What I am not familiar with the the RHEL4 way of doing things, which is what CentOS 4 is based on. IMHO they made something harder that used to be rather quick and easy.
but if he is going to be a problem and troll, he is going to get the +q treatment, just as anyone else does.
It was only a problem for you. Continued name calling "troll" when I have been nothing buy polite. Unfortunately was not treated that way in return.
No one had to respond. Ignoring someone is more mature than booting them from a IRC channel. Because you do not like what they are trying to do etc.
At first I was happy to get a working solution off CentOS kernel sources, how ever I got them. Was pleased with that, and thankfully to the CentOS community.
However my brief exposure to the community, reveals one I would rather avoid. Heck I would rather pay RH than be treated like this.
Really not that hard to ignore, and/or answer question asked, which has yet to be. Or politely ask someone to stop, rather than without notice, silence them or kick them?
And for the record, I have asked at least as many if not more CentOS related kernel ?'s to gentoo channels and no flack. In fact I kept some of them up to date with what was going on in the CentOS channel.
It may not be a strict requirement of the GPL but I think I've seen recommendations about packaging the source and documentation so as to make it easy to rebuild, modify and use in other ways. Seems odd that anyone involved in redistributing GPL'd material would be so against that spirit...
RH very much supports this with RHEL software and kernels. it's exceptionally easy to rebuild them if you do so in a proper environment. RHEL is also the ONLY enterprise distro to release SRPMS to the public without paying for them. SuSE had to spawn a seperate fedora-like project to release their source, and SLES specifically forbids rebuilds in their EULA. Mandriva is very similar.
The "problem" here is that rhel is under no obligation to release code that builds in horrendously configured build environments, or in drastically different environments. I see no reason why they should either. RH has been a champion of FOSS for quite some time (Netscape Directory Server anyone?) and they show no signs of slowing that down. Look at the kernel commits at kernel.org. Many of them are from RH.
Please don't confuse the actions of one person operating WAY outside the bounds of sanity with RH's unwillingness to follow the spirit of the GPL.
-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'' Benjamin Franklin 1775
In the interest of sanity, I say we let this thread die. Until William is able to understand the flaws in the information he gives, or believe what several developers are telling him ( ie there's no way to build a kernel from a -devel package) then there's little point in continuing this. I don't want to see the mailing list turn into the same noise that embodied the irc channel for nearly 2 hours.
The centosplus kernel is very clear proof that the x86_64 kernel can be rebuilt, and built with varying modules etc. That it cannot be easily rebuilt on gentoo is something that doesn't concern me at all. It could be anything from autoFU version differences to nptl not being on the gentoo box to solar flares. It's not something I feel we need to support. End of discussion.
Arguments of "but gentoo $VALUE" will only be answered with a retort of "This ain't gentoo".
-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'' Benjamin Franklin 1775
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 17:55 -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
In the interest of sanity, I say we let this thread die. Until William is able to understand the flaws in the information he gives, or believe what several developers are telling him ( ie there's no way to build a kernel from a -devel package)
I already admitted that, and it has been brought up afterward 2 times now but two different people.
then there's little point in continuing this. I don't want to see the mailing list turn into the same noise that embodied the irc channel for nearly 2 hours.
Exaggeration. I was barely on irc for 10 minutes before silenced the first time, and 5 or so minutes the second time. Over the course of say 30 minutes. 45 max? And no one else was talking on the channel atm.
The centosplus kernel is very clear proof that the x86_64 kernel can be rebuilt, and built with varying modules etc.
Fine, have you personally done that? I wanted to converse with someone WHO HAS BUILT A x86_64 kernel running CentOS.
Still have yet to confirm from anyone in this thread or in IRC if they have, and the steps. What I have been after the entire time I have no gotten. It's been side track by biasness, the gentoo factor and stuff that did not pertain to why I entered IRC or my question?
That it cannot be easily rebuilt on gentoo is something that doesn't concern me at all.
Forget Gentoo. Have you personally done it on CentOS? I am looking for someone who has.
It could be anything from autoFU version differences to nptl not being on the gentoo box to solar flares. It's not something I feel we need to support. End of discussion.
Well only thing I can say there is most stuff on Gentoo is much newer than in CentOS, at least with regard to CentOS4. Granted it can be anything, but I doubt it's as distro env dependent as you all seem to make it.
Since I was able to build a i686 kernel that works perfectly with the binary Adaptec driver for RH 2.6.9-11.EL. I am just trying to do it now with a x86_64 kernel.
Arguments of "but gentoo $VALUE" will only be answered with a retort of "This ain't gentoo".
I know, and I am not asking stuff that has anything really do to with Gentoo. I am trying to find out who has built a custom x86_64 kernel using the CentOS sources.
The more I ask and less it get's answered seems like either those that have do not want to respond. And/or those that are responding have not, and have no clue about what could cause what problem.
I know, and I am not asking stuff that has anything really do to with Gentoo. I am trying to find out who has built a custom x86_64 kernel using the CentOS sources.
The more I ask and less it get's answered seems like either those that have do not want to respond. And/or those that are responding have not, and have no clue about what could cause what problem.
TO EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD: This thread is dead as of 5:12PM CST Feb, 3, 2006.
William, if you are trying to build rebuild a kernel on a STOCK CentOS install please bring those issues back to IRC where you will surely get the guidance and/or nudging in the proper direction. If not, this thread is dead. If/When you do return to irc, please READ what people say to you before going off on an unrelated tangent.
Do not reply to this message on this list, I will accept a direct email if you have questions regarding this thread termination.
-
donavan nelson -
Eric Sandeen -
Jim Perrin -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Matt Hyclak -
Michael Best -
William L. Thomson Jr. -
William Warren