On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:09:51 -0800, AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote:
[kernel compilation]
> Is anybody really ready to go without an existing config file for a
> starting point? :-)

I've done it a few times before. For the last couple of years, the
only times I've missed options is when I didn't anticipate using a
particular piece of hardware while running that kernel (most notably, I
left out wireless network support on my laptop, which would have been
useful at work), but the same thing happens when I use an existing
config file.


--
Simon <simon@no-dns-yet.org.uk> **** GPG: F4A23C69
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
- Douglas Adams

On 2003-12-23, Simon <usenet@no-dns-yet.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:09:51 -0800, AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote:
> [kernel compilation]
>> Is anybody really ready to go without an existing config file for a
>> starting point? :-)
>
> I've done it a few times before. For the last couple of years, the
> only times I've missed options is when I didn't anticipate using a
> particular piece of hardware while running that kernel (most notably, I
> left out wireless network support on my laptop, which would have been
> useful at work), but the same thing happens when I use an existing
> config file.
>
I just tried it after somehow trashing my 2.6.0 kernel. Most
options are pretty obvious if you have a good idea about the
components that make up your machine, and menuconfig's help
helps with the rest. Mine is working wthout any problems (so
far) and I shaved at least 150K off of my last "good" 2.6.0
kernel.

-jeff

no spam <no-spam@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2003-12-23, Simon <usenet@no-dns-yet.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:09:51 -0800, AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote:
>> [kernel compilation]
>>> Is anybody really ready to go without an existing config file for a
>>> starting point? :-)
>>
>> I've done it a few times before. For the last couple of years, the
>> only times I've missed options is when I didn't anticipate using a
>> particular piece of hardware while running that kernel (most notably, I
>> left out wireless network support on my laptop, which would have been
>> useful at work), but the same thing happens when I use an existing
>> config file.
>>
>I just tried it after somehow trashing my 2.6.0 kernel. Most
>options are pretty obvious if you have a good idea about the
>components that make up your machine, and menuconfig's help
>helps with the rest. Mine is working wthout any problems (so
>far) and I shaved at least 150K off of my last "good" 2.6.0
>kernel.
>
>-jeff

Do you have the logo framebuffer working? I can't seem to get the
correct combination to get mode vga=792 working so I can have my BIG
text console.

I'm also getting a module(s) loading error ... modprobe reports that
"version magic 2.6.0 386 gcc-3.2 should be 2.6.0 SMP 386 gcc-3.2", or
at least a message similar to that.

Any pointers? Thanks in advance!
--
------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
------------------------------------------------

In article <2ibkuvglb3f50bb59ghoasrlc0i70n0kqr@4ax.com>, Doug Mitton wrote:
> ...
> Do you have the logo framebuffer working? I can't seem to get the
> correct combination to get mode vga=792 working so I can have my BIG
> text console.
> ...
> Any pointers? Thanks in advance!

Well, I got vga=773 to work, so I guess that proves the concept.
Under "Console display driver support" I've got...

CONFIG_VGA_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_DUMMY_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_PCI_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_FONTS=y
CONFIG_FONT_8x8=y
CONFIG_FONT_8x16=y

Under "Logo configuration" set CONFIG_LOGO=y if you want the
console logo.

-jeff