[parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Paul Bame]

Many of us are accustomed to the way 'make palo' works in our kernel
source tree (it goes over to the palo source tree, builds palo, and
then utilizes the palo Makefile to produce a bootable image).  I want
to convert to a model based on palo being a separate stable piece
of software for which you may not even have sources.  Many of us are
probably also not using 'palo.conf' files, which are the norm for self-
hosted operation.

When self hosted, there's usually no need to run palo after every
kernel build since palo boots out of the file system by file name.
So I propose that the common self-hosted use model be to use simple 'make'
in the kernel tree [and make modules or whatever].  The resulting 'vmlinux'
file can then be copied to the desired location.

I propose that 'make palo' be changed to simply run 'palo -f ./palo.conf'
after vmlinux is built.  This means palo would have to be in the $PATH
and that the top-level linux source directory would contain a
suitable palo.conf file.  I've been using this model for cross-compiling
for several months and like it.  I would document how xc-ers can best
compile and "install" palo as well as supply a palo.conf file with
our typical configurations.

What is 'make palo' today would be changed to 'make buildrunpalo'.  The
longer name is more truthful and less convenient on purpose.

Feedback?

	-P

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Grant Grundler]

Paul Bame wrote:
...
> When self hosted, there's usually no need to run palo after every
> kernel build since palo boots out of the file system by file name.
> So I propose that the common self-hosted use model be to use simple 'make'
> in the kernel tree [and make modules or whatever].  The resulting 'vmlinux'
> file can then be copied to the desired location.


On x86, "make install" will do all the right things to install the
freshly built kernel but doesn't do a damn thing for kernel modules.
Need to run "make modules" and "make modules_install" to really make
sure eveything is in sync.


> I propose that 'make palo' be changed to simply run 'palo -f ./palo.conf'
> after vmlinux is built.  This means palo would have to be in the $PATH
> and that the top-level linux source directory would contain a
> suitable palo.conf file.  I've been using this model for cross-compiling
> for several months and like it.  I would document how xc-ers can best
> compile and "install" palo as well as supply a palo.conf file with
> our typical configurations.
> 
> What is 'make palo' today would be changed to 'make buildrunpalo'.  The
> longer name is more truthful and less convenient on purpose.


How about "make lifimage"?
That's the only reason I run "make palo" in the XC environment.
Having a XC-palo in the environment is no problem.
In the XC env, I don't expect "make install" to do the right thing (tm).

grant

Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Paul Bame]

= > I propose that 'make palo' be changed to simply run 'palo -f ./palo.conf'
= > after vmlinux is built.  This means palo would have to be in the $PATH
= > and that the top-level linux source directory would contain a
= > suitable palo.conf file.  I've been using this model for cross-compiling
= > for several months and like it.  I would document how xc-ers can best
= > compile and "install" palo as well as supply a palo.conf file with
= > our typical configurations.
= > 
= > What is 'make palo' today would be changed to 'make buildrunpalo'.  The
= > longer name is more truthful and less convenient on purpose.
= 
= 
= How about "make lifimage"?
= That's the only reason I run "make palo" in the XC environment.
= Having a XC-palo in the environment is no problem.
= In the XC env, I don't expect "make install" to do the right thing (tm).

ok, I ammend my proposal so that what I just described as 'make palo' be
changed to 'make lifimage', and that what I just called 'make buildrunpalo',
which jumps into the source tree and builds palo among other things, retain
the name buildrunpalo.  Howzzat?

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Andrew Shugg]

Grant Grundler said:
> Paul Bame wrote:
> > When self hosted, there's usually no need to run palo after every
> > kernel build since palo boots out of the file system by file name.
> > So I propose that the common self-hosted use model be to use simple
> > 'make' in the kernel tree [and make modules or whatever].  The
> > resulting 'vmlinux' file can then be copied to the desired location.
> 
> On x86, "make install" will do all the right things to install the
> freshly built kernel but doesn't do a damn thing for kernel modules.
> Need to run "make modules" and "make modules_install" to really make
> sure eveything is in sync.

As a Debian user I discovered the wonders of Manoj's kernel-package
suite to build Debian packages of kernel source/headers/image/docs from
a single kernel tree.  Certainly much easier to install the resulting
kernel-image-*.deb package than fuss about with the various Makefile
targets.  I suppose it would be unfriendly though to ask that this
become the standard means of building and installing hppa-linux kernels?

=)

I see nothing wrong with Paul's suggestion but hope that kernel-package
is educated about the changes for the hppa architecture.  I've grown
fond of it (or too lazy to go back?) ...

Andrew.

--
Andrew Shugg <andrew@neep.com.au>                   http://www.neep.com.au/

"Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself."
"Is there?  Well I'd like to meet him.  I could do with a good laugh."

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Tom]

> > Paul Bame wrote:
> > > When self hosted, there's usually no need to run palo after every
> > > kernel build since palo boots out of the file system by file name.
> > > So I propose that the common self-hosted use model be to use simple
> > > 'make' in the kernel tree [and make modules or whatever].  The
> > > resulting 'vmlinux' file can then be copied to the desired location.
> >
> Grant Grundler said:
> > On x86, "make install" will do all the right things to install the
> > freshly built kernel but doesn't do a damn thing for kernel modules.
> > Need to run "make modules" and "make modules_install" to really make
> > sure eveything is in sync.
>
> Andrew Shugg <andrew@neep.com.au>
> As a Debian user I discovered the wonders of Manoj's kernel-package
> suite to build Debian packages of kernel source/headers/image/docs from
> a single kernel tree.  Certainly much easier to install the resulting
> kernel-image-*.deb package than fuss about with the various Makefile
> targets.  I suppose it would be unfriendly though to ask that this
> become the standard means of building and installing hppa-linux kernels?

(ObDisclaimer: I'm closer to 'user' than to 'developer', much closer...)

Working with this HP715 hasn't been too bad - very similar to early Debian
on the Intel boxes. Lots of support via mailing lists, weird docs, strange
ways of making things work... My only complaint on building a kernel was
the docs at ESIEE. Lots of 'download and configure this, then this, now
this...", which is fine, but they end with "Congrats - your new kernel is
palo/lifimage" and no comment on where it goes...

I don't suppose someone has an updated how-to for actually *using* your
new kernel, do they? Replacing /boot/vmlinux-2.4.0 with the new one
results in an immediate hang on reboot...

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[buggz]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Tom wrote:

> I don't suppose someone has an updated how-to for actually *using* your
> new kernel, do they? Replacing /boot/vmlinux-2.4.0 with the new one
> results in an immediate hang on reboot...
>

*shrug*
Well, I've made two successful kernels, cp'd to /boot, edited
/etc/palo.conf, just like normal to me.

--
 Ed June

 buggz@america.net
 Linux: An open choice for free people worldwide.

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Tom]

> > I don't suppose someone has an updated how-to for actually *using* your
> > new kernel, do they? Replacing /boot/vmlinux-2.4.0 with the new one
> > results in an immediate hang on reboot...
>
> *shrug*
> Well, I've made two successful kernels, cp'd to /boot, edited
> /etc/palo.conf, just like normal to me.

Hmmm... I tried that - copied lifimage to /boot/vmlinux-240-pa15, edited
/etc/palo.conf to change the kernel listed, then ran palo to update it and
rebooted. Same error - can't understand the kernel executable format.

Am wondering if perhaps it's me goofing it up rather than the system.
(Actually am pretty certain it's me, since other people can compile
kernels fine...)

Time to try again!

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 05:05:20PM -0800, Tom wrote:
> > > I don't suppose someone has an updated how-to for actually *using* your
> > > new kernel, do they? Replacing /boot/vmlinux-2.4.0 with the new one
> > > results in an immediate hang on reboot...
> >
> > *shrug*
> > Well, I've made two successful kernels, cp'd to /boot, edited
> > /etc/palo.conf, just like normal to me.
> 
> Hmmm... I tried that - copied lifimage to /boot/vmlinux-240-pa15, edited
> /etc/palo.conf to change the kernel listed, then ran palo to update it and
> rebooted. Same error - can't understand the kernel executable format.

Sounds like you're using the lifimage instead of the vmlinux.

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.

Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:03:19PM +0800, Andrew Shugg wrote:
> Grant Grundler said:
> As a Debian user I discovered the wonders of Manoj's kernel-package
> suite to build Debian packages of kernel source/headers/image/docs from
> a single kernel tree.  Certainly much easier to install the resulting
> kernel-image-*.deb package than fuss about with the various Makefile
> targets.  I suppose it would be unfriendly though to ask that this
> become the standard means of building and installing hppa-linux kernels?
> 
> =)
> 
> I see nothing wrong with Paul's suggestion but hope that kernel-package
> is educated about the changes for the hppa architecture.  I've grown
> fond of it (or too lazy to go back?) ...

The changes required for kernel-package have been submitted to Manoj...

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.