On 13 Feb 2007 13:43:51 -0800
"alisonken1" <alisonken1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 11, 9:51 am, Hufnus <t...@sysdev.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500
> > "John K. Herreshoff" <n...@not.here> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I did not upgrade a machine I built modules and kernel on
> > machine 1, the development machine and moved it to a new HD,
> > chroot to it and lilo'd the device. That means:
> >
> > copy the modules to /lib/modules/2.6.20
> > copy System.map to /boot
> > copy vmlinuz to /
> > copy lilo.conf to /etc
> > and form the chroot jail execute lilo.
> >
>
> If I remember correctly, an easier way of accomplishing this
> is to specify an alternate directory to install the new files
> to:
>
> make ROOT=</path-to-new-base-directory> install
> make ROOT=</path-to-new-base-directory> modules_install
> cp /etc/lilo </path-to-new-base-directory>
> lilo -C </path-to-new-base-directory>/etc/lilo.conf -b
> /dev/<new-boot- disk>

Thanks, I understand. The SDK has two utilities makeCF and
burnit that operate in a similar way. What was goin on in
thread above, was a quicky chroot/lilo in my devel
machine, while I was in a loop of make kernel, install, burn by
hand, bootstrap and test. Objective was to figure out why the
kernel was producing a 2.6.20 that after installation was
unable to locate its modules and insmod them...

TonyB


There are 10 types of people in this world, those that read
binary and those who don't!

--
__ __ _ I N C. http://www.sysdev.org
/ __|\\// __|| \ __ __ / tonyb@sysdev.org
\__ \ \/\__ \||)|/ O_)\/ / \/ System Tools / Utilities
|___/ || ___/|_ /\___|\_/ WIntel / Linux Device Drivers

On Feb 11, 4:25 pm, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500, John K. Herreshoff wrote:
> > Maybe. Kernel.org reminds us to start with a new config file each time we
> > upgrade the kernel. It's a pain, but may solve your problem, if you are
>
> Where is that recommended by Kernel.org? My normal method is to copy the
> previous kernel's config over to the new source tree, and then "make
> oldconfig". After answering those questions, it's the usual process:
> make bzImage
> make modules
> make modules_install
>
> and then copy some things around and reboot. Been working fine for years
> that way, here.
>
> --
> "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

you only need to do make and make modules_install for a 2.6
then copy your bzImage and System.map and .config over.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:19:30 -0800, slackwaresupport wrote:

>> Where is that recommended by Kernel.org? My normal method is to copy the
>> previous kernel's config over to the new source tree, and then "make
>> oldconfig". After answering those questions, it's the usual process:
>> make bzImage
>> make modules
>> make modules_install
>>
>> and then copy some things around and reboot. Been working fine for years
>> that way, here.

> you only need to do make and make modules_install for a 2.6
> then copy your bzImage and System.map and .config over.

Yeah, I know, but I like to do it the way I've always done it.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

On Feb 14, 8:06 pm, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Funny... but Ubuntu is the only other distro I recommend to my
friends. Even a non-technical artist I know uses it... it's pretty
slick. If his only choice was Slackware, he'd be a mac user.

On Google, Ubuntu has a rocks:sucks ratio of 42.0.

Slackware's rocks:sucks ratio: 0.92.

Those Ubuntu guys have done something right.

(Personally, I'm not switching. I like to do things the Slackware
way.)

-Beej

Beej wrote:

> On Google, Ubuntu has a rocks:sucks ratio of 42.0.
> Slackware's rocks:sucks ratio: 0.92.

Maybe, but after having used a Ubuntu-based "liveCD" to evaluate a
specific add-on (image-capture card for video-surveillance system) that
I recently purchased (with the cd included, in fact), I would suggest
that the above only demonstrates that people who like Ubuntu are more
vocal than those who like Slackware (or people who dislike Ubuntu are
_less_ vocal than people who dislike Slackware?)

The liveCD works, I'll give it that. It was quite useful in
demonstrating that the the image-capture card works as advertised, and
it will certainly come in handy if I find I need to refer to a working
system when configuring my Slackware system to do the video
surveillance I purchased this card for, but it didn't demonstrate to me
any reason for a higher "rocks:sucks ratio" than Slackware.

I can't say that Ubuntu "sucks", especially not given that I have very
limitted exposure to it (but at least now greater than zero!), but I
would say that based entirely on that limitted exposure, it doesn't
"out-rock" Slackware either.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:06:37 -0800, Beej wrote:

> On Feb 14, 8:06 pm, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>> "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
>
> Funny... but Ubuntu is the only other distro I recommend to my
> friends.

Funny, funny, at least for the first few thousand times it's
been put as a .sig somewhere :P)

> Even a non-technical artist I know uses it... it's pretty
> slick.

¿ the artist ? By "non-technical artist" do you mean he's
painting by using some 'mind projection' process?

> If his only choice was Slackware, he'd be a mac user.

Not if he'd like to use a printer ;-) (private joke)

> On Google, Ubuntu has a rocks:sucks ratio of 42.0.
>
> Slackware's rocks:sucks ratio: 0.92.
>
> Those Ubuntu guys have done something right.

Depends on what you're baffled by, personally if your
numbers are right I'd be more impressed by a distro that
apparently manage to suck a rock up to 108p100, that's pure
antigrav' ;D)

>
> (Personally, I'm not switching. I like to do things the Slackware
> way.)

Rook/Supe around .92 ?-)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:22:40 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

> Beej wrote:
>
>> On Google, Ubuntu has a rocks:sucks ratio of 42.0.
>> Slackware's rocks:sucks ratio: 0.92.
>

snip...

Any internet survey must be taken with a grain of salt. Certainly, you can
derive a trend, or infer something from it, but as a quantitative or
objective measure, the sampling is decidedly unscientific. Distrowatch is
another example. A glorified hit counter.

--
Peter

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:06:37 -0800, Beej wrote:

>> "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

> Funny... but Ubuntu is the only other distro I recommend to my
> friends. Even a non-technical artist I know uses it... it's pretty
> slick. If his only choice was Slackware, he'd be a mac user.
>
> On Google, Ubuntu has a rocks:sucks ratio of 42.0.

Meaningless. It's a "poll" conducted by drooling win-droids.

> Slackware's rocks:sucks ratio: 0.92.

See above.

> Those Ubuntu guys have done something right.

Perhaps they have, for the click-n-drool crowd.

> (Personally, I'm not switching. I like to do things the Slackware
> way.)

> User-Agent: G2/1.0

You do, huh?

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:

When we want any shit out of you, we'll give your head a squeeze.

On Feb 15, 11:20 am, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> > Those Ubuntu guys have done something right.
>
> Perhaps they have, for the click-n-drool crowd.

Wow--you must be a bundle of joy to hang out with.

> > (Personally, I'm not switching. I like to do things the Slackware
> > way.)
> > User-Agent: G2/1.0
>
> You do, huh?

Yup. Do you often come to incorrect conclusions or is this a fluke?

-Beej