Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kernels/Traditional compilation"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(clearing closed and resolved comments)
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
(referring to the With makepkg and pacman (Recommended) Section)  the kernel26.install script does not complete successfully. I just tried this and it installs the package, but says :
>>> Updating module dependencies. Please wait ...
error: command failed to execute correctly
and lastly, i think in the kernel26.install file, the KERNEL_VERSION variable has to be whatever you set to name your kernel as in your .config file, as well as the current version. So...the script on the wiki says its 2.6.28, which is out dated, and my kernel ended up being named (as i modified the kernel version string thing in .config from "-ARCH" to "-ARCH_MARK_GRANDI"
Also, when i tried to install the kernel-my package after it compiled, it complained that a lot of files from /lib/firmware/ already existed on the filesystem. I had to install the package with the -f (force) option to get it to install.
I am not familiar with bash scripting or whatever to make the appropriate changes to the kernel26.install script, or whats the best option about the lib/firmware conflicts =/
~ [[User:Polygon|Polygon]] 14:50, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
These issues should be fixed with the new PKGBUILD and kernel26.install.
I may be wrong, but I believe what's stored in /lib/firmware is all binary, so there shouldn't be much change between kernel versions, and, as such, it shouldn't matter terribly if it's overwritten with that from a custom compile. To be on the safe side, though, the firmware is omitted from the new PKGBUILD.
~ [[User:Ichifish|Ichifish]] 17:47, 1 November 2009 (GMT)
== Easy Local Kernel Configuration ==
I'm not brave enough to edit the main article, but according to the [http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_32#head-11f54cdac41ad6150ef817fd68597554d9d05a5f 2.6.32 release notes], the build targets "localmodconfig" and "localyesconfig" have been added to ease in creating custom kernels. The difference, as I understand it between the first and second target is that the latter removes unused modules so that init scripts and modules are unneeded.
Perhaps someone saavy enough could edit this article accordingly?
--[[User:EnvoyRising|EnvoyRising]] 03:28, 15 December 2009 (EST)
== Corrections ==
On the PKGBUILD ''arch=('i686')'' should be ''arch=('i686' 'x86_64')''. Also the command ''pacman -U kernel26-my-'' should be something like ''pacman -U kernel26-my*.pkg.tar.gz''.
--[[User:Det|Det]] 15:59, 22 February 2010 (EST)
== Which Way? ==
The introduction list describes what appears to be three ways to customize the Arch kernel:
1. The so-called "Traditional Way".
2. The "makepkg and pacman" method.
3. The "ABS" way.
However, those methods do not follow thru the article.  Under "Build Configuration" we see mention of "The Traditional Way", but not the others.  Under "Compilation And Installation" we see nicely defined "1. Manual, Traditional method" and "2. With makepkg and pacman (Recommended)", but not ABS.
First, shouldn't ABS be included here?  Or if "[[Kernel Customization with kernel26 Package]]" is replacing it (especially if it the ABS version has changed its name anyway), shouldn't it be merged here?  IMHO, the current layout is way too confusing.
Second, couldn't we see some standardization within the article regarding the format.  I must say I really liked the numbered and highlighted method shown above in the "Compilation And Installation" section.  It adds a great deal to clarity and readability.
Thanks. - [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 14:45, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
see [[Talk:Kernel Compilation]] [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 23:13, 22 November 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 07:57, 24 July 2012