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. -- Matt Hyclak Department of Mathematics Department of Social Work Ohio University (740) 593-1263