On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:17:18 +1000, Doug Laidlaw wrote:

>Compiling a vanilla 2.6.20.6 kernel:

Why not 2.6.20.14? Or 2.6.21.5?
>
>(a) They say to compile it as normal user. Where?

I use ~/linux

>(b) I have a Sempron processor; should I choose one of the Athlon variants?

Yeah, get a hint from /proc/cpuinfo

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/

Doug Laidlaw wrote:
> Compiling a vanilla 2.6.20.6 kernel:
>
> (a) They say to compile it as normal user. Where?

My distro (RHEL3) puts the source in /usr/src/linux-xxx. It is considered
poor form to do builds there, but that is where I do it. I do do 'make
clean" afterwards. I think you are not supposed to build there because they
do not want you running it out of space (for me, /usr/src is a separate
partition, but I have a lot of disk space).

> (b) I have a Sempron processor; should I choose one of the Athlon variants?
>
> TIA,
>
> Doug.
>


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:05:01 up 2 days, 14:40, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.20, 4.18

I demand that Grant may or may not have written...

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:17:18 +1000, Doug Laidlaw
> wrote:
>> Compiling a vanilla 2.6.20.6 kernel:

> Why not 2.6.20.14? Or 2.6.21.5?

Could be to (try to) avoid having to rebuild some fiddly out-of-tree
modules...?

[snip]
>> (b) I have a Sempron processor; should I choose one of the Athlon
>> variants?

> Yeah, get a hint from /proc/cpuinfo

That'd be a 32-bit kernel build, then... K7 is a safe option. However, if
it's a 64-bit Sempron (i.e. you know that from the packaging, or the "lm"
flag is listed in /proc/cpuinfo), you can choose K8 or you can restart the
configuration, this time with "ARCH=x86_64" appended to all of your
kernel-related make commands.

If you're using make-kpkg to compile for 64-bit from i386, its man page says
that you want "--arch amd64 --cross-compile -".

--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Generate power using sun, wind, water, nuclear. FORGET COAL AND OIL.

Up your accumulator.

Darren Salt wrote:

> I demand that Grant may or may not have written...
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:17:18 +1000, Doug Laidlaw
>> wrote:
>>> Compiling a vanilla 2.6.20.6 kernel:
>
>> Why not 2.6.20.14? Or 2.6.21.5?
>
> Could be to (try to) avoid having to rebuild some fiddly out-of-tree
> modules...?
>
For the classic reason: because it was there.
> [snip]
>>> (b) I have a Sempron processor; should I choose one of the Athlon
>>> variants?
>
>> Yeah, get a hint from /proc/cpuinfo
>
> That'd be a 32-bit kernel build, then... K7 is a safe option. However, if
> it's a 64-bit Sempron (i.e. you know that from the packaging, or the "lm"
> flag is listed in /proc/cpuinfo), you can choose K8 or you can restart the
> configuration, this time with "ARCH=x86_64" appended to all of your
> kernel-related make commands.
>
> If you're using make-kpkg to compile for 64-bit from i386, its man page
> says that you want "--arch amd64 --cross-compile -".
>
It is 32-bit.

Another one? I want to incorporate some changes to the .config file, but
the info is supplied as just that. I can't find them or anything likely in
the menu. Is there a way to work from .config to the menu?

Doug.
--
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it.
- Aristotle.

Doug Laidlaw wrote:

> Darren Salt wrote:
>
>> I demand that Grant may or may not have written...
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:17:18 +1000, Doug Laidlaw
>>> wrote:
>>>> Compiling a vanilla 2.6.20.6 kernel:
>>
>>> Why not 2.6.20.14? Or 2.6.21.5?
>>
>> Could be to (try to) avoid having to rebuild some fiddly out-of-tree
>> modules...?
>>
> For the classic reason: because it was there.

and for some reason, 2.6.20.14 doesn't support my NV_SATA hardware, so I
went to 2.6.21.5.

Doug.