Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> sindi keesan wrote:
> > gcc 2.7.3 is recommended, 2.95.2 is said not to work for
> > compiling the kernel
>
> Says who?

I was reading the notes in SW71 contrib which said to use the old version 
of gcc there to compile the kernel because the newer one has certain 
problems.  On the CD.  I forget the exact file it was in.

> > and I was trying to use 2.95.3 from SW81.
>
> I've heard that 2.95.3 is one of the best compilers
> to use.  Personally I've never had a problem with
> any of compilers provided by Slackware.  2.91.66
Is that the same as egcs?

> (from Slackware 7.1) works fine.  So does the
> compiler in Slackware 3.5.  I've even successfully
> used the compiler on the Slackware 3.2 live CDrom
> to compile a kernel (via chroot).


Can you chroot between two linuxes with different kernels, say BL2 and 
SW81?  I noticed you can run a different linux on each terminal and my 
partner wants to compare how SuSe and BL2 run scripts, for instance, but 
should we pick something with the same kernel or nearly so, such as SuSE 
6.2 not a later version?  (I expect the scripts will run the same).

I had problems of the same sort trying to compile SANE and gs - the 
configure program could not find some files that I had so I had to add 
after CFLAGS in the makefiles '-I' and the path to the files (soething 
about bits and linux - /usr/src/bits/linux/ ?)  Maybe I am missing 
something that I deleted accidentally?  Anyway, I put on the later 
compiler and it is still not working (2.95.3).  I was going to try 
compiling gs on a full SW81 setup - is it likely to still work on BL2 with 
the SW81 glibc?  There was another problem with cpp.  The gs note said to 
use version 2.7.2 (3?) or later, or some of the earlier versions of gcc 
but a few between 2.5 and 2.7 had problems.

> > I really should learn to compile my own kernel
> > eventually.
>
> It's not rocket science:
> ------------
> make config
> make dep
> make bzImage
> ------------
> You will then find the kernel in arch/i386/boot

Last time I tried to compile a kernel module I followed all the 
directions, got a huge crash that took a while to fix, and some error 
message saying it could not do what I wanted it to do.  This was for a 
winbond ethernet card module.  I gave up.


> If you are confused by all the options in the
> config part, you can copy the BL3 config to .config.

And add sound and delete anything I don't want.  Change to pentium.
(No sound on my 486 laptop).

> Then when you do 'make config', the defaults will
> give you the BL3 kernel (just press ENTER on every
> line).

Some time soon.  Still trying to get Christof's downloadable fonts to 
print correctly in Czech and then Russian.

> > Is anyone in this group still actually using a
> > non-laptop 486?
>
> The 486DX laptop is my primary target.  That's why
> BL3 has PCMCIA and MagicPoint.  That's why I am
> thinking about doing a wireless package.

How much extra memory would it take up to include sound in the kernel?
Are there 486 laptops with sound?

> I have three Toshiba 486 laptops (all with PCMCIA
> slots).  BL3 is ideal for those machines.  I use
> the best of those laptops for all my presentations
> (using MagicPoint running on BL3).

BL3 worked pretty well on my Compaq 486 but the other Compaq 486, a newer 
one, has problems with Xvesa. (Only found 4 colors of the 16M).

Who else is using which modem 486 laptop and does Xvesa and the rest of 
BL3 work for you?

BL works fine on both our pentium laptops, both Toshiba, with sound.
Mine is 166MHz with 24MB RAM.  I guess this can handle the larger bare.i 
kernel.

> > people are now giving us working 200MHz pentiums
>
> Before Christmans I was given a working 200MHz Pentium
> desktop.  Socket 7.  32mb RAM.  Windows 95 (that's how
> I was able to produce the smbclient package).  No USB
> port -- so a BL3 USB package would be useless even on
> that 200MHz machine.

We were given a couple of PCI cards that you can use to add USB.
Not to a laptop though.  But I think there are quite a few of us in this 
group using BL on desktop computers and learning a lot from the 
experience.  And even though a regular Slackware would work on our 
computers, I much prefer your approach of keeping things smaller and more 
efficient.  It is sort of a nuisance remembering to use bare.i kernel when 
I am playing with sound.

If I ever learn to compile a kernel I will include USB and sound module 
support.  How much extra RAM would the kernel require for this?

We were in the past year given four 233-266MHz boards with USB, a 133MHz 
with USB, and more recently a 350MHz with USB, not counting the dead 
600MHz that we just replaced the capacitors on.  Three years ago we were 
given three computers with USB.  So far we only have one USB device (a 
scanner) but our digital camera (serial download) is 10 years old and all 
the new ones are USB.

> Cheers,
> Steven
>
> ____________________________
> http://www.basiclinux.com.ru
> _______________________________________________
> BasLinux mailing list
> BasLinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux

keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org