I am not sure on how to correctly upgrade to kernel 2.6. In the
/etra/linux-2.6 I see how to upgrade with initrd. I do not need initrd
since I have ext2 file system. So would I fallow the steps skipping the
part for initrd?

Earl Larsen wrote:

> I do not need initrd
> since I have ext2 file system. So would I fallow the steps skipping the
> part for initrd?

Yes indeed. Install the kernel-generic and kernel-modules packages from the
extra/linux-2.6.17.13/ directory, add a stanza to /etc/lilo.conf for the
newly installed kernel, run /sbin/lilo, and reboot. Quick and easy :-)

(Beware other posters demanding that you must compile your own kernel from
scratch in order to upgrade. For some reason, compiling seems to come up
whenever someone asks about upgrading the kernel packages.)


Jeffrey

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:09:27 -0600, Earl Larsen wrote:

> I am not sure on how to correctly upgrade to kernel 2.6. In the
> /etra/linux-2.6 I see how to upgrade with initrd. I do not need initrd
> since I have ext2 file system. So would I fallow the steps skipping the
> part for initrd?

An initial ram disk is only needed if you do not have support for the
devices and filesystems needed to boot up.

So compile a kernel with all needed support and skip the initrd stuff.

Also see...

man mkinitrd
--
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

> Earl Larsen wrote:
>
> > I do not need initrd
> > since I have ext2 file system. So would I fallow the steps skipping
> > the part for initrd?
>
> Yes indeed. Install the kernel-generic and kernel-modules packages
> from the extra/linux-2.6.17.13/ directory, add a stanza
> to /etc/lilo.conf for the newly installed kernel, run /sbin/lilo, and
> reboot. Quick and easy :-)
>

don't forget to install udev, no need, but it's simply eXellent so.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Earl Larsen wrote:

> I am not sure on how to correctly upgrade to kernel 2.6. In the
> /etra/linux-2.6 I see how to upgrade with initrd. I do not need initrd
> since I have ext2 file system. So would I fallow the steps skipping the
> part for initrd?

First, are you sure you want 2.6.17? During Xmas, I installed 2.6.19
partly because of some IRQ problems in 2.6.18. I have no experience
with 2.6.17, but unless there is specific reason for that particular
choice, I would consider using latest kernel. I have not had problems
with 2.6.19. I also use ext2 (force of habit and no problems or
deficiencies detected).

Dominic

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:54:15 -0800, Jeffrey Froman wrote:

> Earl Larsen wrote:
>
>> I do not need initrd
>> since I have ext2 file system. So would I fallow the steps skipping the
>> part for initrd?
>
> Yes indeed. Install the kernel-generic and kernel-modules packages from the
> extra/linux-2.6.17.13/ directory, add a stanza to /etc/lilo.conf for the
> newly installed kernel, run /sbin/lilo, and reboot. Quick and easy :-)
>
> (Beware other posters demanding that you must compile your own kernel from
> scratch in order to upgrade. For some reason, compiling seems to come up
> whenever someone asks about upgrading the kernel packages.)
>
Ack! The 2.6.17.13 is just fine in most cases, IMO.
>
> Jeffrey
>
To the OP: remember to fix the pointer /etc/rc.d/rc.modules to point to
the 2.6.x version. I sometimes forgot that step, until it shows up with
something not working on the next boot (mouse).

--
Douglas Mayne

Jeffrey Froman <jeffrey@fro.man> wrote:
> Earl Larsen wrote:
>
>> I do not need initrd since I have ext2 file system. So would I
>> fallow the steps skipping the part for initrd?
>
> Yes indeed. Install the kernel-generic and kernel-modules packages
> from the extra/linux-2.6.17.13/ directory, add a stanza to
> /etc/lilo.conf for the newly installed kernel, run /sbin/lilo, and
> reboot. Quick and easy :-)
>
> (Beware other posters demanding that you must compile your own
> kernel from scratch in order to upgrade. For some reason,
> compiling seems to come up whenever someone asks about upgrading
> the kernel packages.)

Beware those posters who imply that compiling your own kernel "from
scratch" is something to be feared and avoided. If you don't want
to compile your own kernel, stick with an OS, like windoze, where
compiling is neither necessary, nor possible.

cordially, as always,

rm

On 2007-01-25, Douglas Mayne <doug@localhost.localnet> wrote:
>>
> To the OP: remember to fix the pointer /etc/rc.d/rc.modules to point to
> the 2.6.x version. I sometimes forgot that step, until it shows up with
> something not working on the next boot (mouse).


Using udev, I find no reason to use rc.modules for 'force loading' modules,
so I have a static rc.modules.local (which is called from rc.S if it exists,
in lieu of any other rc.modules* script:

### Update module dependencies ###
RELEASE=`uname -r`
# If /usr is mounted and we have 'find', we can try to take a shortcut:
if [ -x /usr/bin/find -a -e /lib/modules/$RELEASE/modules.dep \
-a /lib/modules/$RELEASE/modules.dep -nt /etc/modules.conf ]; then
NEWMODS="`/usr/bin/find /lib/modules/$RELEASE -type f -newer \
/lib/modules/$RELEASE/modules.dep`"
# Only rebuild dependencies if new module(s) are found:
if [ ! "" = "$NEWMODS" ]; then
echo "Updating module dependencies for Linux $RELEASE:"
/sbin/depmod -a
else
echo "Module dependencies up to date (no new kernel modules found)."
fi
else
# we don't have find, or there is no existing modules.dep, or it is
# out of date.
echo "Updating module dependencies for Linux $RELEASE:"
/sbin/depmod -A
fi


If I need special parameters for a specific module when it loads (for example,
psmouse), then those go in /etc/modprobe.d/options

RW

rm@biteme.org wrote:
> Jeffrey Froman <jeffrey@fro.man> wrote:
>> Earl Larsen wrote:
---snip------
> If you don't want
> to compile your own kernel, stick with an OS, like windoze, where
> compiling is neither necessary, nor possible.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm

This time I can't resists feeding the troll.
T
hat is just so much bullshit. You, sir, are an ass. 99% of computer users, no
matter how expert and skilled, do not need to compile the kernel of any OS.
Computers is a tool and the OS is pretty much irrelevant: It's just a means to rn
software that *really* does something.

PV does such a fantastic job on Slackware that is good to go right out of the box.
Fast and stable.

BTW, Yes I am posting this from Thunderbird/Windoze. So what? My 2 PIII laptops are
busy compiling 2.6.17.13 and SLAMD64 is acting up on this one.

King Beowulf <kingbeowulf@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

> That is just so much bullshit. You, sir, are an ass. 99% of
> computer users, no matter how expert and skilled, do not need to
> compile the kernel of any OS.

That's good. Because 99% of computer users, use Windoze, which they
can't compile, even if they wanted to.

> Computers is a tool and the OS is pretty much irrelevant: It's
> just a means to rn software that *really* does something.

Oh, so there is no real difference between linux and windoze?
Except that one runs most of the decent software and the other
doesn't? Because one OS features a pretty much complete driver set,
even if third party, while the other lacks many, many, and almost
all, new drivers?

> PV does such a fantastic job on Slackware that is good to go right
> out of the box. Fast and stable.

(modquote! modquote!)

Sure it does. And it runs all kinds of garbage, "right out of the
box" that isn't required. About the only advantage that linux has
over windoze is that it can be compiled and that all the extra shit
can be weeded out.

And since the ability to compile, or even simply to read the source,
is about the only advantage linux has over windoze, what would be
the point of using linux if you weren't going to compile the kernel?

> BTW, Yes I am posting this from Thunderbird/Windoze. So what? My
> 2 PIII laptops are busy compiling 2.6.17.13 and SLAMD64 is acting
> up on this one.

Why are you compiling the 2.6 kernel? We thought that linux was
ready to go, right out of the box?

Hmm?

And you call _us_ a troll?

cordially, as always,

rm