On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:15:29PM +0200, Inge Thorin Eidsæther wrote: > > Hi guys, and thanks for all your help so far! > > Observations: > > - I misspelled moudule-init-tools as modutils-init-tools. > Sorry! Did all file searches by correct name, though. > > - module-init-tools was installed BEFORE kernel recompile > > - A non-initrd kernel image was made > > - Documentation/post-halloween-2.6.txt > does not exist in my kernel source tree > (downloaded directly from www.kernel.org) > > - I upgraded module-init-tools to last available version > (now: 3.1-pre5) after kernel recompile (was 3.1-pre2) > > - I also did an 'apt-get update' and 'apt-get upgrade' > after recompile (could have been smart to do before?) > > - There is no modprobe.conf anywhere on my system, > just the manpage for it and a demo script called > generate-modprobe.conf.gz in doc/module-init-tools/ex..
Reading the info with the 3.1 module-init-tools this seems to be okay. Apparently modprobe.conf is *no longer* require (was with 3.0). > > - Modules are found in correct location,that is: > /lib/modules/2.6.71, which corresponds to the output > of 'uname -r' Is this a typo? or are you using kernel 2.6.7 with an append-to-version of 1? I would recommend you use "-" (hyphen) before numeric append-to-version so the kernel version does not look wrong (i.e. there is no kernel 2.6.71). That said, I don't think this is your problem (since you say it matches `uname -r`). What are the first errors you get and the text above them? > > - The file modules.dep in that directory looks OK. > > _ I have removed modutils as suggested, since I am > now running a 2.6 kernel anyway. > > - There's a modules.conf.old in /etc, but no modules.conf. > AFAIK I didn't rename it...so a script must have. > So moving entries from modules.conf (nonexisting) > into modprobe.conf (also nonexisting) or into the > modprobe.d directory (how? by copying them to the alias file, > which is already there, and contains - from what I can see - > about the same things?), confuses me a tad. > > - Getting a bit weary of this... :-\ > > Ideas, anyone? Do I have to go back to W*nd*ws? I hope not :-) > Does things really have to be this convoluted? Maybe it helps to remember with W*nd*ws you wouldn't even have the choice to compile your own kernel, or try the latest and greatest from the developers. > > Thanks for input! > > best regards, > > Inge Thorin Eidsæther > blackwings NOSPAM at NOSPAM inbox dot com Sorry I'm not more help -- I'm not up-to-date with the latest versions of things, and unfortunately I can't bring my play-around computer down right now to see what has changed. Hopefully others will have better input. -- Chris Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------- GNU/Linux --- The best things in life are free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
