john gennard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I followed O'Reilly - tried 'insmod' and as unsuccessful, built a database >with 'depmod -a'. 'modules.dep' showed there were dependencies, so >I used 'modprobe' which I understood should find and install the >dependencies. O'Reilly says I should use the full path - is this a >recent change?
The full path to modprobe, or the full path to the module? Using the full path to modprobe is a good idea. I don't know what the history of modprobe's arguments is, but given that it needs to find the appropriate module for a given kernel, you'd always want to leave the path out and let it do the work for you. >I don't get any more detail in the error messages:- > modprobe <full path> says file not found. > modprobe <atmel> gives no output, merely returns to the prompt I assume the second line was actually modprobe atmel (ie, without the angle brackets). If not, try without the brackets. Also try "lsmod", which will show you what's loaded. It might be that you've got the module loaded now, and should be set. You can also give modprobe the "-v" option to make it more verbose. -- Michael A. Marsh http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
