Installing "make" for Compiling the Kernel
Forum: Other Help Topics
Topic: Installing "make" for Compiling the Kernel
started by: webs05
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 22 2007,14:05
So I need to do some compiling because I would like to get the newest kernel source files in my DSL install. But I have no "make". Command is not found when I try to run it.To verify I don't have make on this install I typed "man make". And sure enough here is my output...
The application isn't installed.
So my question is, does anyone know how to get it installed? I have been looking for the last couple days and haven't found anything.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.
Posted by curaga on Aug. 22 2007,14:21
It's included in gcc1-with-libs, which is the essential compiling extension, without it you would not have a compiler either.You should not use man to see if a program is installed in DSL, DSL uses internet man pages thus finding all pages, not just the ones for installed programs. You probably were offline and that caused the error...
Posted by curaga on Aug. 22 2007,14:24
BTW, why would you need make to have only the source around?
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 22 2007,14:33
Thank for the help first off!Secondly, it's kind of a long story, but DSL is the only distro I have found to enable me to recompile a kernel for Boothbox. I was unable to get Boothbox to install locally which is how most people have recompiled the Boothbox kernel. See, where I work my boss wants to use Boothbox on Dell's with Broadcom NICs, so I have to update the Boothbox kernel to get this support.
Posted by andrewb on Aug. 22 2007,23:44
Just to add more confusion......Be careful if you are compiling the kernel / modules as they are compiled with gcc v2.95 - also available as an extension, but 'make' isn't included in this extension for some reason(?!?) - you still need the gcc1 extension as well - just make sure you use the correct compiler as you will then have 2 installed!. Read the info file for gcc 2.95 (it's a in the UNC extensions section).
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Aug. 23 2007,06:03
Technically, gcc and make are separate applications... neither depend on the other.If you want a 'make' that was in the woody era, you can just apt-get it.
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 28 2007,21:20
Thanks for your help everyone.I went into MyDSL and added some packages and I seem to have found the ones that worked. I'm pretty sure gcc was it.
One more question:
Boothbox has a linux24 kernel file. I am assuming I need to use a 2.4 kernel source then? Then do I issue a command like "make linux24" to create the kernel?
Posted by Juanito on Aug. 29 2007,05:30
| Quote |
| Boothbox has a linux24 kernel file. I am assuming I need to use a 2.4 kernel source then? |
Could you give a few more details about this - I guess you're speaking of a kernel patch, but maybe not.
If you search these forums on "usb AND dummy", you'll find some details that might help in patching the kernel.
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 29 2007,13:29
Thanks for the reply Juanito. I'm pretty sure it's not a kernel patch. The following files are listed in the boot/isolinux folder for Boothbox:boot.cat - not sure what this is
boot.msg - this is the message that is displayed under the logo
isolinux.bin - not really sure what this is
isolinux.cfg - appears to be a file that has the the boot options and has the following line in it: "KERNEL linux24". This is where I got the idea the kernel file is linux24.
linux24 - Appears to be a similar thing as a "bzImage" file.
logo.16 - The logo that loads up
minirt24.gz - Not sure
I have a bzImage file, but I don't think Boothbox uses that file type. Which is why I was wondering if I can just issue a "make linux24" command?
Thanks
Posted by curaga on Aug. 29 2007,15:28
No, you still do "make bzimage" with linux 2.4. All modern Linuxes use bzImage file type, including DSL and boothbox, linux24 is just renamed from bzImage (use "file"! They both would say similar things..)boot.cat, isolinux.bin - booting files
minirt24.gz - gzipped initial ramdisk (does some hw configuration and searches for the KNOPPIX image)
Posted by curaga on Aug. 29 2007,15:29
You do know you will have to replace modules too?
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 29 2007,17:47
Thanks for the reply!The problem with using a bzImage file is that "isolinux.cfg" is configured to use linux24. So if I used a bzImage file wouldn't I have to change a lot of things and get rid of a lot of files? If yes and if it is do-able I have no problems working on it since the Boothbox kernel really needs an update anyways. But it appears to me to be more complex than just dropping in the bzImage file.
What I did as a temporary fix was install DSL to the hard drive. Then I copied the linux24 file, and the modules from it. And repackaged up Booth. I burn't the CD and as is well. But like I said, if there is a way to compile the kernel and use the bzImage file I would certainly do that.
Posted by curaga on Aug. 29 2007,17:49
Like I said, linux24 is just renamed bzImage...
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 29 2007,18:01
So I can create bzImage and rename it to linux24? I tried this already using the latest kernel source files and it didn't work. The system would get to the splash screen for Booth and then would boot into the HD install I have for DSL. Do I have to use 2.4.* kernel source instead, I originally tried using 2.6.*?
Posted by curaga on Aug. 29 2007,18:08
you would need to change more for 2.6 than just copying bzImage and modules. Stick with 2.4 for now..Yes, just rename bzImage to linux24
Posted by webs05 on Aug. 29 2007,18:19
Thanks I will definitely try that. The thing is I have a decent amount of experience with Linux, I have just never compiled the kernel before this last week and I know very little about the Linux kernel. So now that I understand how to compile the kernel, I think I would like to attempt to get 2.6 in Boothbox.
If I did want to move to 2.6 I am assuming I would have to use GRUB or LILO and scrap the isolinux.cfg along with a few other files? The question is, is it worth it? What are the main differences between 2.4 and 2.6?
Posted by curaga on Aug. 29 2007,18:27
The bootloader is fine for 2.6 kernels too. I think you should try the latest 2.4 first though..Main differences: loads of new stuff = bigger size