Re: [suse-sparc] Compiling kernel 2.4.14 on Ultra 5

From: Lionel Gresse (lionel@open.ch)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 05:47:38 PST

  • Next message: Ingo T. Storm: "Re: [suse-sparc] Compiling kernel 2.4.14 on Ultra 5"

    From: "Lionel Gresse" <lionel@open.ch>
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:47:38 +0100
    Message-ID: <77468EED1282.AAA5EA4@winnetou.open.ch>
    Subject: Re: [suse-sparc] Compiling kernel 2.4.14 on Ultra 5
    

    Ingo,

    Sorry, I was a bit laconical. Basically, build the kernel typing "make"
    with no option and "make boot" generate the same kernel with file name
    vmlinux in the root directory of the linux sources. So, my question was, is
    there a real difference between make without any option and make with boot
    as argument.

    On another front, I tried to compile the latest freeswan and got a bunch of
    errors in the process. Any clue?

    I also installed the freeswan package that is on Suse 7.3 but it can not
    start because the kernel coming with Suse 7.3 does not support ipsec. Do
    you know where I can find such a kernel or how I could compile one myself?

    Lionel

    "Ingo T. Storm" <suse-sparc@computerbild.de> wrote:
    >Hi,
    >
    >> >>However, the traditional make
    >> >>bzImage gave me: no make rule for bzImage.
    >> >
    >> >bzImage is only available on i386. "make boot" instead
    >
    >> I see. I tried both make boot and make and got exactly
    >> the same kernel. What is special with make boot?
    >
    >Sorry, you lost me here. There is noting special with "make boot" boot at
    >all. It just "makes" the kernel. Please let me know compared to what it
    >should/could be special.
    >
    >Sorry,
    >Ingo
    >
    >

    -- 
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-sparc-unsubscribe@suse.com
    For additional commands, e-mail: suse-sparc-help@suse.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.0 : Wed Nov 28 2001 - 05:46:09 PST