How to properly compile a kernel?

[Wolf Canis]

thomas fisher wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2008 07:04:33 Oliver Grawert wrote:
>   
>> hi,
>>
>> On Do, 2008-01-17 at 14:26 +0100, Wolf Canis wrote:
>>     
>>> Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>>       
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Mo, 2008-01-14 at 18:18 +0100, Josef Wolf wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to compile the kernel on my Gutsy box by myself.
>>>>>           
>>>> did you have a look at the documentation from the kernel team how to do
>>>> it with an ubuntu kernel ?
>>>>
>>>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kernel/Compile
>>>>         
>>> And there other sites too, but non of these are really working,
>>> because
>>> Cononical don't want that. You have to use they stock kernel.
>>> All these documentations are incomplete.
>>>       
>> what makes you think that ? the linux-source package contains the
>> complete kernel source. did you talk to the kernel team about it or
>> filed bugs for the doc-team if you think the documentation is worng ?
>>
>> what interest should canonical have to prevent peoples hardware from
>> working ? why do you think does the ubuntu distro team waste space for
>> the linux-headers, build environment etc on the CD that could be filled
>> with shiny desktop apps ?
>>
>> if there is the need to build your own stuff (i couldnt imagine why
>> there would be one to build the kernel itself though, since 99% of the
>> stuff you might need is modular and there are way better ways to get
>> working modules than to compile the linux package) you are surely able
>> to do it ...
>>
>>     
>>> They have split the kernel in several packages:
>>> kernel-image, kernel-modules
>>>       
>> these two are debian packages and have nothing to do with ubuntu (note
>> that ubuntu uses linux- as prefix for all kernel packages it uses).
>>
>> linux-image will contain the same kernel and modules you get from
>> kernel.org.
>> linux-ubuntu-modules contains modules that are not likely to go to the
>> kernel.org source ever but are requested by users to make specific
>> hardware or software work.
>> there is no linux-modules package (and there never was).
>> the separating of the restricted-modules has licensing reasons that i
>> would expect to be obvious.
>>
>> with all your complaints about the build system, did you think about
>> participating and improving it ? the kernel team would be happy about
>> every helping hand to make it easier for users, i'm sure ...
>>
>> ciao
>> 	oli
>>     
>   Thanks Oliver
>  From the user's perception, the " kernel " subject is rather cloudy. The 
> elucidation that you just presented needs to be inserted into the formal 
> Ubuntu documentation. One of the problems in Linux is the profusion 
> of       " Howto s " spanning numerous kernel versions and specific needs.
> When you include the more spurious conversations on this topic of " kernel" 
> that are subject to being found by google the uncertainty factor rises.
> For example I just googled " compiling linux kernel " 
>  response was 167,000 entries.
> -------------> and for " compiling ubuntu linux kernel "
>  response was 116,000 entries.
>   
And they all describe more or less the classical way to build kernel:
- make menuconfig
- make
- make modules_install

Or they describe the Debian way:
- make menuconfig
- make_kpkg
- dpkg -i your-kernel-package

but the Ubuntu way:
- apt-get install some tools
- apt-get source linux-source`uname -r`
- and then you will find under debian/config/$ARCH a set of configs. That's
  fine and there suggestion is to edit one of these files by hand and to
edit
  the debian/rules and ... and ...
You have to know the complete Ubuntu kernel build system and a lot
space left on your hard disk. Only to build one custom kernel.
>   Granted for the maintainers of Ubuntu the subject is a night mare, but from 
> the numbers there appears to be a large linux community that needs the 
> ability to produce a custom kernel.
>   
What a revolutionary thought. ;-)
> Tom
>  
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20080117/a8564b8e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20080117/a8564b8e/attachment.sig>