2.6.0 modules don't link properly

2.6.0 modules don't link properly

[bill davidsen]

I tried building 2.6.0-final on a new whitebox-3.0-final install, and
the modules_install produced thousands of unresolved symbols. This built
on another machine I've been running and updating since the 2.5.3x days,
so there might be something I've missed, but I don't quite see what it
would be.

Whitebox is built from RH-ES-3.0 source, so the only things I updated
were the procps and modutils, using the last tar which didn't have "pre"
in the name. I see that there is a new tar, out nearly ten hours so it
must be stable, which has jumped from 0.9.15 to 3.0.15-pre1, but I'm
happily using something months old on other systems.

Can someone toss me a clue? Has anyone had a working build with
RH-ES-3.0? Yes, I know other things need to be done before I can
actually run the kernel, but being able to build would be nice, since I
got a new test system just for 2.6 test/demo use.


-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: 2.6.0 modules don't link properly

[Andre Tomt]

On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 00:17, bill davidsen wrote:
> I tried building 2.6.0-final on a new whitebox-3.0-final install, and
> the modules_install produced thousands of unresolved symbols. This built
> on another machine I've been running and updating since the 2.5.3x days,
> so there might be something I've missed, but I don't quite see what it
> would be.
> 
> Whitebox is built from RH-ES-3.0 source, so the only things I updated
> were the procps and modutils, using the last tar which didn't have "pre"
> in the name. I see that there is a new tar, out nearly ten hours so it
> must be stable, which has jumped from 0.9.15 to 3.0.15-pre1, but I'm
> happily using something months old on other systems.
> 
> Can someone toss me a clue? Has anyone had a working build with
> RH-ES-3.0? Yes, I know other things need to be done before I can
> actually run the kernel, but being able to build would be nice, since I
> got a new test system just for 2.6 test/demo use.

Sounds like a case of missing module-init-tools.

Re: 2.6.0 modules don't link properly

[Bill Davidsen]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Andre Tomt wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 00:17, bill davidsen wrote:
> > I tried building 2.6.0-final on a new whitebox-3.0-final install, and
> > the modules_install produced thousands of unresolved symbols. This built
> > on another machine I've been running and updating since the 2.5.3x days,
> > so there might be something I've missed, but I don't quite see what it
> > would be.
> > 
> > Whitebox is built from RH-ES-3.0 source, so the only things I updated
> > were the procps and modutils, using the last tar which didn't have "pre"
> > in the name. I see that there is a new tar, out nearly ten hours so it
> > must be stable, which has jumped from 0.9.15 to 3.0.15-pre1, but I'm
> > happily using something months old on other systems.
> > 
> > Can someone toss me a clue? Has anyone had a working build with
> > RH-ES-3.0? Yes, I know other things need to be done before I can
> > actually run the kernel, but being able to build would be nice, since I
> > got a new test system just for 2.6 test/demo use.
> 
> Sounds like a case of missing module-init-tools.

As noted, 0.9.15 was the latest available when I build, Rusty didn't
suggest needing anything newer, and other systems work with far older
versions.

A new "fixed" release of the O/S came out over the weekend, so I will try
doing the install all over again. Seems odd, may be a library or
something.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: 2.6.0 modules don't link properly

[Rusty Russell]

On 22 Dec 2003 23:17:03 GMT
davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:

> I tried building 2.6.0-final on a new whitebox-3.0-final install, and
> the modules_install produced thousands of unresolved symbols. This built
> on another machine I've been running and updating since the 2.5.3x days,
> so there might be something I've missed, but I don't quite see what it
> would be.

IDE as a module?  Some configs seem to be broken.

Rusty.
-- 
   there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
   many doers quoting their contemporaries.  -- Larry McVoy