On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:10:11 -0500, Dale wrote:

> vmlinuz. Weird. They did that to confuse me didn't they. :/

Just to confuse things, I used to run a PPC machine, and the kernel was
called vmlinux on that :-O


--
Neil Bothwick

Ultimate memory manager; Windows, it manages to use it all..

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:45:34 -0700, walt wrote:

> > http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2_Quick_Start
>
> Thanks for the tip. /etc/make.conf strikes me as an odd
> place to put settings that apply to only one package.

How about

VIDEO_CARDS - only used by xorg-drivers
LIRC_DEVICES - only used by lirc
SANE_BACKENDS - only used by sane
CAMERAS - only used by (lib)gphoto
APACHE2_MODULES - you get the idea by now
QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS
QEMU_USER_TARGETS
FOO2ZJS_DEVICES
DRACUT_MODULES
CALLIGRA_FEATURES

These are all use-expanded variables, so make.conf is the most logical of
the existing locations to include them. In some ways, a directory
in /etc/portage (something like package.conf) would make more sense, now
that there are so many more of these. Incidentally, all of these are in
my current make.conf


--
Neil Bothwick

Shell to DOS... Shell to DOS... DOS, do you copy? Shell to DOS...

On Saturday 30 Jun 2012 23:01:40 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > It seems to expect to keep
> > only two kernels around and I'm real bad to have more than that,
> > sometimes way more than that.
>
> No it doesn't, it only installs kernels, not uninstalls them. Sure, there
> are only two symlinks but those are less relevant with GRUB2 since
> grub2-mkconfig creates menu entries for all your kernels anyway.

Aha! This will be useful for me.

I have not used make install because I found that it would override previous
kernels of mine that I might needed to revert to.

I remember you (or someone as knowledgeable) had mentioned of a way to
automate the linkage and naming of vmlinuz so that older kernels were retained
and versioned, but I never went as far as experimenting with it.

> > Plus, if I do it myself, I know what I am
> > doing. If I use make install, I don't know if something was changed in
> > how it does it.
>
> So you trust make to compile and link hundreds of object files and create
> the kernels and modules. You also trust it to copy all the modules, but
> you just want to copy that one last file manually so you can pretend you
> are in control? ;-)

Well, he and I are at least in control of this copying and naming actions?
;-)
--
Regards,
Mick

On 01/07/12 01:06, Neil Bothwick wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:10:11 -0500, Dale wrote:


vmlinuz. Weird. They did that to confuse me didn't they. :/


Just to confuse things, I used to run a PPC machine, and the kernel was
called vmlinux on that :-O


IIRC, "vmlinux" was the name for uncompressed kernel images, and
"vmlinuz" for compressed ones.

Mick wrote:
> On Saturday 30 Jun 2012 23:01:40 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>> It seems to expect to keep
>>> only two kernels around and I'm real bad to have more than that,
>>> sometimes way more than that.
>> No it doesn't, it only installs kernels, not uninstalls them. Sure, there
>> are only two symlinks but those are less relevant with GRUB2 since
>> grub2-mkconfig creates menu entries for all your kernels anyway.
> Aha! This will be useful for me.
>
> I have not used make install because I found that it would override previous
> kernels of mine that I might needed to revert to.
>
> I remember you (or someone as knowledgeable) had mentioned of a way to
> automate the linkage and naming of vmlinuz so that older kernels were retained
> and versioned, but I never went as far as experimenting with it.

Me either. I just do it the easy way using cp. That way, I know what
is what and that I have not overwritten anything I might need later. I
like to be sure since I have had kernels with bugs for my system.

>
>>> Plus, if I do it myself, I know what I am
>>> doing. If I use make install, I don't know if something was changed in
>>> how it does it.
>> So you trust make to compile and link hundreds of object files and create
>> the kernels and modules. You also trust it to copy all the modules, but
>> you just want to copy that one last file manually so you can pretend you
>> are in control? ;-)
> Well, he and I are at least in control of this copying and naming actions?
> ;-)

I might add, I don't use modules except for nvidia which is outside the
kernel. So, I may be in more control than you think. ;-)

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:24:17 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> I still don't like the deal of having to run something after changing
>> the kernel tho. It seems to lilo-ish to me.
> Then how do you manage with GRUB legacy? If you don't have symlinks to
> the kernels and you don't update the config, how do you boot the new
> kernel? You have to update the config, GRUB2 just has an option to do
> this automatically.
>
>

It's simple. I open grub.conf and add a entry into it. I do that
manually so I that I know what is changed. I also keep a couple older
entries just in case a kernel gets messed up, has a bug or won't boot
for some reason etc. I don't use symlinks for kernels at all. I been
doing it that way for years and it works very well for me. If something
goes wrong, I know what I did and how to fix it. If I use some script,
I may not know exactly what the script did.

The key thing is, after I change the grub.conf file, I don't have to run
anything else. It just works. Grub2 does tho. That reminds me of how
lilo does it.

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

On Jun 30, 2012 7:13 PM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:24:17 -0500, Dale wrote:

> >

> >> I still don't like the deal of having to run something after changing

> >> the kernel tho. *It seems to lilo-ish to me.

> > Then how do you manage with GRUB legacy? If you don't have symlinks to

> > the kernels and you don't update the config, how do you boot the new

> > kernel? You have to update the config, GRUB2 just has an option to do

> > this automatically.

> >

> >

>

> It's simple. *I open grub.conf and add a entry into it. *I do that

> manually so I that I know what is changed. *I also keep a couple older

> entries just in case a kernel gets messed up, has a bug or won't boot

> for some reason etc. *I don't use symlinks for kernels at all. *I been

> doing it that way for years and it works very well for me. *If something

> goes wrong, I know what I did and how to fix it. *If I use some script,

> I may not know exactly what the script did.

>

The scripts are there for you to read, and even modify.


> The key thing is, after I change the grub.conf file, I don't have to run

> anything else. *It just works. *Grub2 does tho. *That reminds me of how

> lilo does it.

>

You don't have to run anything after you create grub.conf with Grub2.* In fact, you can still manually edit the config file without using the config generation scripts.* But the generation scripts are, once again, both readable and editable.* I've also never once had them create an improper config.* I just use it because it's faster, since it works.



The only problem I had with Grub2 was the grub2 folder in /boot, as I had previously used it on Ubuntu and was confused (so this was gentoo-specific to me, and I had arrogantly ignored the package output).


Really, I don't think it's as different as you think.* And I, too, manually cp over my kernels after I build them, but only because it never occurred to me to even USE "make install".* The next kernel I build I will be trying it!



Alecks Gates, sent from Android on an HTC G2

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
>> On 06/30/2012 05:50 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
>>> never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
>>> because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
>>> kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? If it is,
>>> is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? If I need
>>> a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? I have
>>> looked and I don't have one on mine here. Maybe I am missing
>>> something. Google didn't find me anything either.
>>>
>> As someone else said, the spelling. For grub-mkconfig to recognize it
>> as a kernel
>> the default names should begin with "vmlinuz-" or "kernel-"
>> For my gentoo disk, I rename the bzImage to gentoo.<XYZ> where the XYZ
>> is the kernel
>> version number. I hand mung the grub.cfg (still legacy grub) in the
>> usual fashion.
>> I will probably migrate to grub2 pretty quick next time I play with
>> the gentoo install.
>>
>> Grub2 grub-mkconfig os-prober method recognizes grub legacy configs
>> and builds proper
>> menuentry stanzas as needed.
>>
>> I'm using multiple discs for booting my system. The first drive (BIOS
>> default) is a Win7 native,
>> but I use the BIOS "boot menu" options to usually boot grub2 from
>> another drive. This drive's grub.cfg
>> contains all of my linux installations, which are spread around 4
>> different drives.
>>
> Ahhhh, I can name it kernel. That makes more sense to me. Me votes for
> kernel-x.y.z. Heck, this may work for me.
>
> I still don't like the deal of having to run something after changing
> the kernel tho. It seems to lilo-ish to me.

You can also make/maintain the grub.cfg yourself with grub2, just like
in old grub. In fact this is what I do... I don't use the
grub2-mkconfig each time, I only used it once to generate a file and
then edited it by hand after that. It is simply a tool to generate a
config file, certainly not a requirement.

I have /boot/vmlinuz and /boot/vmlinuz.old as options in my grub menu
(entitled "linux" and "linux (previous kernel)". When I "make install"
my kernel sources it automatically moves vmlinuz to vmlinuz.old and
copies the newest kernel to vmlinuz. The explicitly versioned files
are still placed there, too. This way I never have to screw around
with updating my grub config and it always points to latest kernel and
my previous kernel. (also have options for memtest86+ and windows 7)

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:30:41 +0100, Mick wrote:

> > So you trust make to compile and link hundreds of object files and
> > create the kernels and modules. You also trust it to copy all the
> > modules, but you just want to copy that one last file manually so you
> > can pretend you are in control? ;-)
>
> Well, he and I are at least in control of this copying and naming
> actions? ;-)

I understand it with Dale, he needs to feel there is at least one thing
he can screw up himself and not blame on hal ;-)


--
Neil Bothwick

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:13:07 -0500, Dale wrote:

> The key thing is, after I change the grub.conf file, I don't have to run
> anything else. It just works. Grub2 does tho. That reminds me of how
> lilo does it.

You're wrong there. All grub2-mkconfig does is update the config
file, it's nothing like lilo. If you use symlinks, you don't have to run
anything, just like with GRUB 0.

I used to have a script to do the make/make install and add all kernels
to the GRUB menu, now the latter part is handled more cleanly by
grub2-mkconfig, without my giving up any controls of how or where the
entries are added.

Of course, you could hex-edit the MBR if you wanted real control, why
trust a text editor to get it right? :-)


--
Neil Bothwick

Format: (v.) to erase irrevocably and unintentionally.
(n.) The process of such erasure.