| 1 |
On 06/21/2010 01:23 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
>> The only thing that genkernel would add is your initrd. The kernel is |
| 3 |
>> exactly the same, whether you compile it with "make" or through |
| 4 |
>> "genkernel". Do a test and you'll see. (I'm assuming we're both talking |
| 5 |
>> about gentoo-sources, not vanilla-sources. Either way, they'd be the |
| 6 |
>> same.) Some might be confused about what happens in the steps if they |
| 7 |
>> haven't been down the "kernel compilation trail" more than once or |
| 8 |
>> twice, but for folks who just want to compile their kernel and plop it |
| 9 |
>> into place, along with a hands-off initrd, it's rather handy. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> But only if it works. When I compile my kernel, I KNOW for sure what is |
| 14 |
> in there. When genkernel does one, especially on a new install, I have |
| 15 |
> no idea what is in it or what is not. If something goes wrong, I don't |
| 16 |
> know where to start. Is it a kernel problem or is it something else? |
| 17 |
> Who knows. Then you have to go back and start from the bottom, usually |
| 18 |
> the kernel, and work your way back up to find out what is broken. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
By "But only if it works," I assume the antecedent "it" refers to is a |
| 21 |
kernel that we're attempting to boot correctly. (In other words, you're |
| 22 |
not talking about genkernel failing to create a kernel for you. Is that |
| 23 |
correct?) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If someone has trouble on an initial install, then that just means they |
| 26 |
didn't configure the kernel correctly, is what I interpret that to mean. |
| 27 |
The result of "make" and the result of "genkernel kernel" are exactly |
| 28 |
the same. If your "make menuconfig" creates an invalid .config file for |
| 29 |
you, no sort of magic is going to make its resultant kernel valid. Do |
| 30 |
you mean to say that you just grab a kernel, jump into the directory and |
| 31 |
say "make" without an mrproper and some sort of config? You do realize |
| 32 |
that genkernel has --menuconfig, --xconfig and --gconfig exactly for |
| 33 |
this purpose, don't you? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
What sort of things do you believe genkernel is adding to your kernel? |
| 36 |
If you use "genkernel --menuconfig --no-install kernel", you can look |
| 37 |
and see what it did. It's no different than running "make menuconfig" |
| 38 |
followed by a "make; make modules". Just look in /usr/share/genkernel at |
| 39 |
the gen_compile.sh and you'll see that it does a make. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Genkernel may work for you but that doesn't mean it does for everyone |
| 42 |
> else. Should I mention hal here? When someone comes for help, your |
| 43 |
> looking for the failure not the successes. If it was sucessful, they |
| 44 |
> wouldn't need help. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Which is why I mentioned genkernel in the first place. Most times a hang |
| 47 |
after boot is due to components that were missed in the kernel build -- |
| 48 |
from where? -- from a missing or incorrectly created initrd if the |
| 49 |
required modules weren't compiled into the kernel. The easiest way that |
| 50 |
I've seen is to use genkernel and get back to work. Then later on you |
| 51 |
can find out what an initrd is and why it's needed with modules but at |
| 52 |
least you'd have a running system. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
No, I don't think you should mention hal because it's probably OT for a |
| 55 |
thread about a hung boot. But you should apply to yourself a similar |
| 56 |
logic you ask of me: if others can use genkernel successfully, why can't I? |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Bill |
Archives