Very Computer

by j » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:45:50

When I compile a new kernel, do I have to use make install. For
example I did this:

rm -rf /lib/modules/2.4.7-20custom (just be sure)

make clean
make mrproper
make xconfig
make dep
kept Makefiles EXTRAVERSION = -10custom

make modules
make modules_install
nohup make bzImage & (for monitoring)
cp /usr/src/linux-2.4.7-10/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.031403

Now, do I have to do this:

make modules_install
make install
?

I did have modules in the new configuration, but I thought this was
handled above before this step.

I actually tried this step (make install), but get some error about
not installing a file system at 0x305 (close to that anyway; don't
have the error in front of me now).

I then modified grub according and rebooted.

Now, I have some files that are not read only, but are in a strange
filesystem that will not let me add data to text files because it is
full? (it doesn't know) and when I copied a file from say /etc/ to
/proc (where the kernel placed some of the files) I get "No such
device." But the files are there. One just can't do anything with
them. I do have adequate disk space.

Thank you for any guidance.

Red Hat 7.2 kernel 2.4.7-10 i386

by bd » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:56:21

> When I compile a new kernel, do I have to use make install. For
> example I did this:

> rm -rf /lib/modules/2.4.7-20custom (just be sure)

> make clean
> make mrproper
> make xconfig
> make dep
> kept Makefiles EXTRAVERSION = -10custom

> make modules
> make modules_install
> nohup make bzImage & (for monitoring)

Run it in the foreground. How else would you know when it's done?

Quote:> cp /usr/src/linux-2.4.7-10/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.031403

> Now, do I have to do this:

> make modules_install
> make install
> ?

No, just modules_install. I usually do:
make dep clean && make bzImage modules modules_install
(install the bzimage in my /boot and update GRUB)

Quote:> I did have modules in the new configuration, but I thought this was
> handled above before this step.

> I actually tried this step (make install), but get some error about
> not installing a file system at 0x305 (close to that anyway; don't
> have the error in front of me now).

> I then modified grub according and rebooted.

> Now, I have some files that are not read only, but are in a strange
> filesystem that will not let me add data to text files because it is
> full? (it doesn't know) and when I copied a file from say /etc/ to
> /proc (where the kernel placed some of the files) I get "No such
> device." But the files are there. One just can't do anything with
> them. I do have adequate disk space.

I don't know what make install does, but I wouldn't use it.

--
Freenet distribution (temporary): http://24.25.175.161:8891/6n14QDjWB9o/
BOFH Excuse #48:

bad ether in the cables

by **Davi** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:24:21

> When I compile a new kernel, do I have to use make install. For
> example I did this:

> rm -rf /lib/modules/2.4.7-20custom (just be sure)

> make clean
> make mrproper
> make xconfig
> make dep
> kept Makefiles EXTRAVERSION = -10custom

> make modules
> make modules_install
> nohup make bzImage & (for monitoring)
> cp /usr/src/linux-2.4.7-10/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.031403

> Now, do I have to do this:

> make modules_install
> make install
> ?

> I did have modules in the new configuration, but I thought this was
> handled above before this step.

make mrproper
make xconfig

Configure kernel for your system.

make dep
make clean
make bzImage
make modules
make modules_install
make install

--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
Slackware 9.0.0 Kernel 2.4.20 i686 (GCC) 3.2.2
Uptime: 14:28, 1 user, load average: 2.02, 1.54, 1.30

by **John-Paul Stewar** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:35:32

> When I compile a new kernel, do I have to use make install. For
> example I did this:

> rm -rf /lib/modules/2.4.7-20custom (just be sure)

> make clean
> make mrproper
> make xconfig
> make dep
> kept Makefiles EXTRAVERSION = -10custom

> make modules
> make modules_install
> nohup make bzImage & (for monitoring)
> cp /usr/src/linux-2.4.7-10/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.031403

> Now, do I have to do this:

> make modules_install
> make install
> ?

You only have to 'make modules_install' once. You do _not_
need 'make install' at all so long as you copy the kernel
and update your bootloader as you did. You might want to
put your new System.map file somewhere handy. (My distro
puts System.map-<kernel-version> in /boot by default; I
don't know if that's universal behaviour, though.)

Quote:> I did have modules in the new configuration, but I thought this was
> handled above before this step.

> I actually tried this step (make install), but get some error about
> not installing a file system at 0x305 (close to that anyway; don't
> have the error in front of me now).

> I then modified grub according and rebooted.

So you're fine. There's no need for 'make install'

Quote:> Now, I have some files that are not read only, but are in a strange
> filesystem that will not let me add data to text files because it is
> full? (it doesn't know) and when I copied a file from say /etc/ to
> /proc (where the kernel placed some of the files) I get "No such
> device." But the files are there. One just can't do anything with
> them. I do have adequate disk space.

/proc isn't a real filesystem. It is not on disk anywhere.
You cannot create files there. Only the kernel can. You
can read from files on /proc, and you can modify some of
them (which is actually modifying kernel paramters on the
fly), but you cannot create files on /proc.

If you're having trouble writing to files (other than in
/proc), you should check for adequate disk space with 'df'
and check for free inodes with 'df -i'.

by **Timothy Murph** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:56:57

> I don't know what make install does, but I wouldn't use it.

That's a rather silly remark.
It's much easier and more reliable to say "make install"
than to copy the kernel and other files.

--
Timothy Murphy

tel: +353-86-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

by **hrv** » Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:37:00

>> I don't know what make install does, but I wouldn't use it.

> That's a rather silly remark.
> It's much easier and more reliable to say "make install"

Why? I think you're being rather silly saying this.
What is more reliable then copying the kernel image to the RIGHT place and
with the RIGHT name yourself? Do you really think the Makefile knows better
then me where and how to install kernel image on MY system?
There are quite a few distributions out there and they DO NOT follow the
same rules so I suggest you copy it yourself just to make sure that the
right thing is done.
BTW, I call my image "linux" some distros call it "vmlinuz" what about you?
So how the f*** your Makefile knows all the differences?

Quote:> than to copy the kernel and other files.

What other files? There are just to files you need to copy: kernel image and
System.map (I'm not talking about modules here).

by **Davi** » Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:01:18

>>>I don't know what make install does, but I wouldn't use it.

>>That's a rather silly remark.
>>It's much easier and more reliable to say "make install"

> Why? I think you're being rather silly saying this.
> What is more reliable then copying the kernel image to the RIGHT place and
> with the RIGHT name yourself?

Yep! I always copy the files into place instead of using
"make install" never had any problems doing it like this in the
last 6 years that I've been using linux.

--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
Slackware 9.0.0 Kernel 2.4.20 i686 (GCC) 3.2.2
Uptime: 7:51, 1 user, load average: 1.27, 1.04, 1.06

by j » Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:34:54

> > When I compile a new kernel, do I have to use make install. For
> > example I did this:

> > rm -rf /lib/modules/2.4.7-20custom (just be sure)

> > make clean
> > make mrproper
> > make xconfig
> > make dep
> > kept Makefiles EXTRAVERSION = -10custom

> > make modules
> > make modules_install
> > nohup make bzImage & (for monitoring)
> > cp /usr/src/linux-2.4.7-10/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.031403

> > Now, do I have to do this:

> > make modules_install
> > make install
> > ?

> You only have to 'make modules_install' once. You do _not_
> need 'make install' at all so long as you copy the kernel
> and update your bootloader as you did. You might want to
> put your new System.map file somewhere handy. (My distro
> puts System.map-<kernel-version> in /boot by default; I
> don't know if that's universal behaviour, though.)

> > I did have modules in the new configuration, but I thought this was
> > handled above before this step.

> > I actually tried this step (make install), but get some error about
> > not installing a file system at 0x305 (close to that anyway; don't
> > have the error in front of me now).

> > I then modified grub according and rebooted.

> So you're fine. There's no need for 'make install'

> > Now, I have some files that are not read only, but are in a strange
> > filesystem that will not let me add data to text files because it is
> > full? (it doesn't know) and when I copied a file from say /etc/ to
> > /proc (where the kernel placed some of the files) I get "No such
> > device." But the files are there. One just can't do anything with
> > them. I do have adequate disk space.

> /proc isn't a real filesystem. It is not on disk anywhere.
> You cannot create files there. Only the kernel can. You
> can read from files on /proc, and you can modify some of
> them (which is actually modifying kernel paramters on the
> fly), but you cannot create files on /proc.

> If you're having trouble writing to files (other than in
> /proc), you should check for adequate disk space with 'df'
> and check for free inodes with 'df -i'.

Thanks.

WHen I boot the new kernel the /proc isn't even there. I also noticed
that when the new kernel is booted it says VFS - ext2 read only. I
have to modify the files in /proc/sys/net. Thanks again.

by j » Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:36:19

> >> I don't know what make install does, but I wouldn't use it.

> > That's a rather silly remark.
> > It's much easier and more reliable to say "make install"

> Why? I think you're being rather silly saying this.
> What is more reliable then copying the kernel image to the RIGHT place and
> with the RIGHT name yourself? Do you really think the Makefile knows better
> then me where and how to install kernel image on MY system?
> There are quite a few distributions out there and they DO NOT follow the
> same rules so I suggest you copy it yourself just to make sure that the
> right thing is done.
> BTW, I call my image "linux" some distros call it "vmlinuz" what about you?
> So how the f*** your Makefile knows all the differences?

> > than to copy the kernel and other files.

> What other files? There are just to files you need to copy: kernel image and
> System.map (I'm not talking about modules here).

Can you tell me which System.map file I need to copy and where to? I
only thought I had to copy the image to /boot. Thanks again.

by j » Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:52:22

> > When I compile a new kernel, do I have to use make install. For
> > example I did this:

> > rm -rf /lib/modules/2.4.7-20custom (just be sure)

> > make clean
> > make mrproper
> > make xconfig
> > make dep
> > kept Makefiles EXTRAVERSION = -10custom

> > make modules
> > make modules_install
> > nohup make bzImage & (for monitoring)
> > cp /usr/src/linux-2.4.7-10/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.031403

> > Now, do I have to do this:

> > make modules_install
> > make install
> > ?

> You only have to 'make modules_install' once. You do _not_
> need 'make install' at all so long as you copy the kernel
> and update your bootloader as you did. You might want to
> put your new System.map file somewhere handy. (My distro
> puts System.map-<kernel-version> in /boot by default; I
> don't know if that's universal behaviour, though.)

> > I did have modules in the new configuration, but I thought this was
> > handled above before this step.

> > I actually tried this step (make install), but get some error about
> > not installing a file system at 0x305 (close to that anyway; don't
> > have the error in front of me now).

> > I then modified grub according and rebooted.

> So you're fine. There's no need for 'make install'

> > Now, I have some files that are not read only, but are in a strange
> > filesystem that will not let me add data to text files because it is
> > full? (it doesn't know) and when I copied a file from say /etc/ to
> > /proc (where the kernel placed some of the files) I get "No such
> > device." But the files are there. One just can't do anything with
> > them. I do have adequate disk space.

> /proc isn't a real filesystem. It is not on disk anywhere.
> You cannot create files there. Only the kernel can. You
> can read from files on /proc, and you can modify some of
> them (which is actually modifying kernel paramters on the
> fly), but you cannot create files on /proc.

> If you're having trouble writing to files (other than in
> /proc), you should check for adequate disk space with 'df'
> and check for free inodes with 'df -i'.

Do you see problems with grub?

default=0
timeout=10
splashimage=(hd0,1)/grub/splash.xpm.gz
title Red Hat Linux (2.4.7-10)
root (hd0,1)
kernel /vmlinuz-2.4.7-10 ro root=/dev/hda5
initrd /initrd-2.4.7-10.img
title Red Hat Linux (2.4.7-10.bzImage.031403)
root (hd0,1)
kernel /bzImage.031403 ro root=/dev/hda5

by **Russell Sha** » Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:37:34

...
> WHen I boot the new kernel the /proc isn't even there.

Recompile the kernel. There's a setting to enable the /proc thing.

by **Timothy Murph** » Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:10:49

>> >> I don't know what make install does, but I wouldn't use it.

>> > That's a rather silly remark.
>> > It's much easier and more reliable to say "make install"

>> Why? I think you're being rather silly saying this.
>> What is more reliable then copying the kernel image to the RIGHT place
>> and with the RIGHT name yourself? Do you really think the Makefile knows
>> better then me where and how to install kernel image on MY system?

Yes, if you don't know what "make install" does.

Quote:>> There are quite a few distributions out there and they DO NOT follow the
>> same rules so I suggest you copy it yourself just to make sure that the
>> right thing is done.
>> BTW, I call my image "linux" some distros call it "vmlinuz" what about
>> you? So how the f*** your Makefile knows all the differences?

My kernel is called vmlinuz-2.4.21-pre5 .
I don't suffer from the delusion that I can improve on
the kernel implementors.

Quote:>> What other files? There are just to files you need to copy: kernel image
>> and System.map (I'm not talking about modules here).

You ought to look at what "make install" does sometime.
You'll find it does more than that.

Quote:> Can you tell me which System.map file I need to copy and where to? I
> only thought I had to copy the image to /boot. Thanks again.

Just say "make install" as the kernel authors suggest.

--
Timothy Murphy

tel: +353-86-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Very Computer

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?

Compiling New Kernel Question Is make install Necessary?