Compiled my first kernel...

and it was everything I thought it would be!

Compiled a 2.6.38 on a 2.6.18 Centos system. Interesting I must say.

 

Great! Congrats. Now go build & test 2.6.39-rc2!

For config options it will take you all of 5 questions in make oldconfig.

I'm running it on my machines now, rc1 was a bit crappy, rc2 is running mostly fine so far.

 

Yeah Didnt feel the need to run a release candidate. Having some GUI issues with tearing and such going to have to work it out.

I must say Im not too much of a centos fan right meow...

 

Hi, gratz on compilation - Q: did you have any troubles regarding rtc device after running the custom?

 

You have to remember that CentOS is not intended to be a desktop...it's intended to be a server operating system, and it does that very well. Also, note that CentOS 6 is still in development, and should be released soon. A more desktop-friendly cousin of CentOS would be Fedora.

 

Sphinx, congratz!
If you want to transform your CentOS installation to be rather desktop than server, you might be interested in some kernel pathsets like -ck or -lqx (already consist of -ck).
I'm running in my Arch installation my self-compiled kernel (2.6.38.2) based on lqx with some changes in config to fit my needs - it's rock solid

 

The only snag I had after the initial compile was that I had to edit: CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2=Y from being commented out and then recompile.

This isn't a desktop. This is a server in a lab environment.

 

Ahh sorry, you mentioned GUI issues is all.

 

Yeah I know, gui on a server is weird to me too. But the professor wanted us to load a GUI during install to experience it all. Every linux server (pure server) I have runs CLI only. I find the GUI to be for the lazy and I do all my lab work through scripts or throwing commands.

But yeah there are some issues with gnome and the new kernel. Im not sure as to whats going on but in 2 weeks Ill check as I just made sure the system was working/stable and logged.

 

A better alternative to CentOS right now is ScientificLinux 6 based on RHEL 6. I'm using it as desktop so are many others. This thread on the CentOS Social Forum pretty much sums it up for me

 

that is pretty cool. I had looked at playing with Linux From Scratch, but I just don't have the time for another project.

 

"F......off." Well thats not a thing to see in a thread. Im wondering what they were referring to in those statements.

Really not that hard, download the kernel you want unzip/tar it to /usr/src. Then go to the new tarball root and type:

Code:

make xconfig

or

Code:

make gconfig

Then choose the features you want installed, then enter the following commands:

Code:

make
make modules
make modules_install
make install

Then reboot and choose the new kernel in the grub loader and hopefully it boots.

 

I don't even want to know Our forum is garnering some of their members, that was my post near the end listing the new forum address...things don't seem to be great at CentOS right now.

 

I keep telling myself that i'm going do mess around with that one day too..never get around to actually doing it though..hehe (someday....)
and..congrats sphinx!

 

Yeah. I may mess with SL as I trolled around thier forum and they seem to e nice people. But for now I just cannot pull myself away from debian style linux.

Thanks!

 

Compiling kernels is easy once you do it a few times.

Reading the help sections in menuconfig helps out a lot.

 

I'm a Debian fan, so I'm biased, but I think Debian's solution for kernel builds is pretty solid. They ship a bunch of tools that allow you to -- with a single command -- build a .deb package containing your custom kernel (and optionally another with the headers.) You don't even need to be root to build it.

That way you get the benefits of package management (including in-place upgrades for different revisions of the package), not to mention stuff like automatic grub configuration, automatic dkms module rebuilding, etc.

It takes me precisely two commands to build and install a new kernel on my machine, and just one to roll back if it doesn't work out the way I wanted.

 

Took only 1 command on Arch.

 

Hah, +1.
makepkg FTW!

 

Smart-aleck. You could do it in one command on Debian too at the expense of readability. I was kinda assuming best practices...

Speaking of distro mocking, how's that complete lack of package security working out for you?

 

Not so well, but I sure do like pacman -Rns and pacman -Qdt. Does Debian have anything like that?

 

Boy, those Archers sure like to get out and bang the drums.

 

I don't bother much, as I compile many pkgs by myself ;p
And yeah, -Qdt (option for removing old dependencies) is really awesome, isn't it?

 

apt-get remove leaves config files

apt-get check looks for broken dependencies

apt-get build-dep installs/removes packages to satisfy dependencies.

Use the -s modifier to simulate. So what were you saying about debian style linux again?

 

pacman -Qdt lists orphaned dependencies

So, if I installed AmaroK and it came with a ton of KDE dependencies, but only removed AmaroK, now unused KDE dependencies exist in the system. pacman -Qdt would allow me to see these. Furthermore, pacman -Rns $(pacman -Qqdt) will automatically remove them from my system.

pacman -Rns removes X and it's unused remaining dependencies (without backing up anything). It's like the Batman to -Qdt's Robin.

IIRC apt doesn't have this. It's been a long time since I used a apt-based system though, so I maybe wrong.

 

deborphan

and

dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall

and

apt-get --purge autoremove

 

apt-get build-dep will auto remove orphaned dependencies according to its description it will also install any missing dependencies as well.

You want to only list them?

Code:

sudo apt-get -s build-dep package_to_check

Want to fix all your ailments?

Code:

sudo apt-get build-dep package_to_check

 

Mmm, Okay. I'll still keep Arch though

 

build-dep is for source packages and libraries...

 

Variety is the spice of life my friend!

Still trying to relearn this linux craziness. In the lab Im using yum and rpm at work and home I use apt-get...so much to relearn.

 

You're a braver man than I. The idea that there's no way to determine whether or not someone's tampered with, say, the kernel I get from a mirror (or heck, tampered with anything I pull down from the main repos while it was in flight) scares me too much to want to use Arch. I like the "start small, work your way up" approach and the rolling release idea, but the stability, security, and overall polish of Debian have kept me a fan for many years.

I'm starting to pick up FreeBSD in my spare time, and I gotta say... Debian and RHEL-derivatives have spoiled me.

 

Same here re: RHEL derivatives and Debian. Arch just isn't a serious distro for a production environment or server (or anything for me).

 

Well, I'm not in a production environment, so...

 

Hence why I find it hard to leave ubuntu. I want to really test debian, but being as Im on a debian style system I find it hard to justify switching when I have everything setup the way I want it. SL looks interesting too.

To each their own. You like arch i use ubunutu, other use RHEL, while some like SL or fedora. Its what makes linux so nice is there is a flavor for everyone.

 

Well I will admit: my forays into Ubuntu-land have ended... interestingly.

First: Ubuntu 9.04. Set up my laptop with a JFS root partition. Oops. Apparently, that's a no-no -- the devs who wrote their checkroot init script apparent never considered that one might do that. Result: the first time / got marked as dirty, the system ceased booting. Not a good introduction. Debian never suffered from this (AFAIK).

Then I tried the Ubuntu 9.04 Netbook Remix. Worked great, except I installed it on a netbook with the *exceptionally rare* GMA 950 (mind the sarcasm...) Result: hard locks whenever the GPU was placed under any load. Sure, this was Intel's bug -- but considering that Ubuntu 1) knew about it at release time 2) considered the release production-ready with the bug in place 3) didn't fix the bug for many, many months after release, I don't forgive them. Debian avoided this bug by simply waiting/testing the xorg packages before declaring them stable.

9.04 actually ended up being decent, and I used it for a while on a few boxes. It worked great once I knew the caveats...

Most recently, I tried 10.10. I burned the CD, put it in to my Intellistation 9228, and booted. It got to the end of init, tried to start X, crashed X, tried to start X, crashed X, etc. I switched to another VT and it hard locked. I said "Right, that's enough of that.", kicked the power, removed the disk, and went back to BSD for my workstation.

Now that's not to say that I've only had flawless experiences with Debian -- but I've *never* experienced the sort of QC issues that I have with Ubuntu. That's not to say that Ubuntu's horrible... just that I'm biased due to a bad few first impressions.

 

See Im having an init issue too. Whenever I run:

Code:

 sudo telinit 3

It starts the porcess of going into runlevel 3 but fails and freezes at the ubuntu logo. I have been thinking about converting to debian as I should have said Im more of a debian style guy. Ubuntu seems to be gearing more for general market then power users (maybe Im wrong) as I have just recently re-became one (still re-learning the ropes).

Its just such a PITA to get everything setup and configured and then have to start from scratch. Maybe after this semester when I no longer need my cluster Ill convert to debian. As for RH style, well so far they are OK in a lab environment, but Im not too sure I could make one of those distros work for me.

I guess time will tell.