D]>
Subject: busybox-cvs-udeb: busybox insmod fails to pass module parameters on 2.4
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.58
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+
Package: busybox-cvs-udeb
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
The busybox insmod seems to be failing to pass module parameters into the
kernel, either with d-i's 2.4.25 (where I have to explicitly tell tulip to
use 10BaseT for my network card) or with my main system's 2.4.26.
Here is an example
on, 19 Apr 2004 22:37:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:37:09 -0400
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: busybox insmod always complains of missing symbols now
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Conten
Until this bug can be fixed, I have put the old version of the busybox
udebs in localudebs for my daily i386 image build. I do not know if
other arches are also affected.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Package: busybox-cvs-udeb
Version: 20040415-2
Severity: critical
Tags: d-i
It is now impossible to do installs with d-i on i386, because attempts
to load any module always complain of missing symbols. I can reproduce
this outside of d-i by using busybox insmod:
joey:/lib/modules/2.4.25>s
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:39:13AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The attached patch inplements 2.6 support in busybox insmod. Please test
> > them.
> I merged depmod.
I'll upload that today. Please no
Hi folks
The attached patch inplements 2.6 support in busybox insmod. Please test
them.
Bastian
--
Without freedom of choice there is no creativity.
-- Kirk, "The return of the Archons", stardate 3157.4
Index: debian/config-
Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Excellent. BTW, going to LinuxWorld?
I'll be working the booth on Friday.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:45:03PM -0800, David Whedon wrote:
> I'll start making a udeb of modutils, since that looks like where this is
> heading, okay?
How about filing a bug on modutils to do this? I'm sure wichert would be
happy to add the udeb support in the main modutils package, where it
e I would love to get some more archs (such as mips) supported in busybox
> insmod, I really do have to agree here. modutils is going to be a better
> choice for the installer.
>
> I did the busybox insmod for a special case where I had to load a proprietary
> kernel module from an
On Thu Jan 25, 2001 at 08:31:41PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > modutils. I really hope no one tries to reproduce insmod in busy box.
> > The code for the 32bit/64bit support in one binary is hellish enough to
> > keep working in one modutils package, let alone trying to ensure
On Thu Jan 25, 2001 at 11:10:52PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> How about just make modutils create a udeb?
While I would love to get some more archs (such as mips) supported in busybox
insmod, I really do have to agree here. modutils is going to be a better
choice for the installer.
Ben Collins wrote:
> modutils. I really hope no one tries to reproduce insmod in busy box.
> The code for the 32bit/64bit support in one binary is hellish enough to
> keep working in one modutils package, let alone trying to ensure it
> works in busybox too.
>
> How about just make modutils creat
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:54:04PM -0700, Randolph Chung wrote:
> > I'd love to. There is one little problem. Or rather, there are several
> > little problems, specifically, alpha, hppa, m68k, mips, ppc, and sparc.
> > Busybox insmod requires a little bit of arch
> I'd love to. There is one little problem. Or rather, there are several
> little problems, specifically, alpha, hppa, m68k, mips, ppc, and sparc.
> Busybox insmod requires a little bit of arch specific code for each
> arch. So far, only x86, arm, and sh are supported. S
Erik Andersen wrote:
> I'd love to. There is one little problem. Or rather, there are several
> little problems, specifically, alpha, hppa, m68k, mips, ppc, and sparc.
> Busybox insmod requires a little bit of arch specific code for each
> arch. So far, only x86, arm, and
alpha, hppa, m68k, mips, ppc, and sparc.
Busybox insmod requires a little bit of arch specific code for each
arch. So far, only x86, arm, and sh are supported. So if I turn it on,
I will get nasty emails from the autobuilders saying:
#error Sorry, but insmod.c does not yet support this a
Erik, could you include insmod in your next iteration of busybox-udeb? I
really need a modprobe, but insmod will do.
With that and a few things that are stuck in incoming, and a set of
split kernel module udebs, we should have a chrooted system that can
bring itself up on the network.
--
see sh
18 matches
Mail list logo
