On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 02:45 -0700, C_Wakefield wrote: > On Wednesday 25 October 2006 01:05, you wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 October 2006 09:08, C_Wakefield wrote: > > > Greetings. > > > Still trying to understand why I can't seem to run any kernels I compile. > > > Been trying since 2.6.17 on my new amd64-X2 and since then the only > > > kernel that'll boot is a 2.6.16-2-amd64-k8-smp. > > > I've tried using the debian amd64 kernel conifig on most kernels as well, > > > with no joy. > > > Kind of at the end of the rope here with ideas. NOW I'm beginning to > > > think it's the compiler, 4.1? I've noticed that 2.6.16-2 is compiled > > > with 4.0. > > > > > > How do I specify gcc 4.0 instead of 4.1 to compile a kernel? > > > > I would expect it to be part of the "alternatives" mechanism, but it seems > > its not. there is a /etc/alternatives/cc file, but its a link to > > /usr/bin/gcc. > > > > /usr/bin/gcc is again a link, this time to /usr/bin/gcc-4.1 in my case. I > > have successfully compiled sources that needed gcc-4.0 by changing the > > links of /usr/bin/gcc and /usr/bin/g++ to point to the 4.0 version. I guess > > you can try the same brute trick. > > > > Dimitris > Thanks for the idea. I just compiled 2.6.18.1 with .config from my only > running debian kernel: 2.6.16-2-amd64-k8-smp with gcc-4.0 using the symlink > in /etc/alternatives/gcc. Again, no joy. > My next, is to use gcc-2.95, but not sure if it that's a good idea, given > it's > age? > > What is odd, also, is that debian linux-images: 2.6.18-1-amd64 and > 2.6.17-2-amd64 won't boot my machine either!Thanks for the replies,
2.95 has no 64-bit support. If you want a 32-bit kernel, then this probably isn't the right list. What precisely is happening when you try & boot your system? Do you have some some specific error or diagnostic information that could be used to find what the issue is? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
