problem. All other programs where
> updated correctly. I could not find a binary rpm for rh6.
>
> - diego
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sat
- Original Message -
From: Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4 problems
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > well ,thanks. the latter (/li
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> well ,thanks. the latter (/lib/modules/2.4.0/moduls.dep) is zero. how can i
> fix it?
As I wrote before, it will be created automatically at boot time.
In redhats and dervatives '/sbin/depmod -a' is run from
/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit
See the depmod man
well ,thanks. the latter (/lib/modules/2.4.0/moduls.dep) is zero. how can i
fix it?
- Original Message -
From: Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4 problems
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 [
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) it should be done automaticly by make install_modules no?
> 2) what if a have 20-30 modules installed? I looked at 2.2.5 moduls.conf and
> found about 100-200 modules (or 300 lines) which is too much for me. btw: i
> had tried it without sucess an
- Original Message -
From: Ariel Biener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Hetz Ben Hamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4 problems
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
>
>
>
&
- Original Message -
From: Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4 problems
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The problem was i configurated it for P III while I have a P
Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
>
> Ariel dear..
>
> 4 machines - all of them AMD, not a single problem with gcc-2.96-69, and with
> 10% speed increase over kgcc...
The Linux kernel has a fair amount of gcc hacks. gcc 2.9.6-69 is the _wrong_
compiler for building kernels. At best you might not notice anyth
maybe you chose the wrong proccessor type
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Hi all
|
| i have tried to compile the latest kernel, with gcc 2.92.66 (or similar).
| When I booted it the computer says "uncompressing linu
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
Hetz, I don't know exactly how you measure a 10% increase in
performance. I would rather stick to RedHat's recommendations in this
case. It is possible that newer gcc's work, and also possible they
actually improve performance. I just chose the safe ch
Ariel dear..
4 machines - all of them AMD, not a single problem with gcc-2.96-69, and with
10% speed increase over kgcc...
Hetz
On Sunday 28 January 2001 22:19, Ariel Biener wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Compile with kgcc (aka egcs-1.2 or so).
>
>
> --Ariel
>
> >
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compile with kgcc (aka egcs-1.2 or so).
--Ariel
> Hi all
>
> i have tried to compile the latest kernel, with gcc 2.92.66 (or similar).
> When I booted it the computer says "uncompressing linux...OK" and then gets
> stucked.
> Any suggestions? I di
1. Upgrade your GCC to 2.96-69 ot 2.96-70
2. Which processor you have? if you have AMD then DO NOT select any options
from the msr/microcode etc...
Which hardware you have?
Hetz
On Sunday 28 January 2001 20:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all
>
> i have tried to compile the latest kernel, w
Hi all
i have tried to compile the latest kernel, with gcc 2.92.66 (or similar).
When I booted it the computer says "uncompressing linux...OK" and then gets
stucked.
Any suggestions? I did the same with kernel 2.25 (the one on RH6) with no
problems..
- diego
==
14 matches
Mail list logo
