| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sycomonkey
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: 2.6 Kernel, no modules, some stuff broken |
 |
|
I'm not home right now, but if someone could list this off the top of their head that would be terribly useful, otherwise when I do get home I'll come back and be a bit more specific if I can't figure it out on my own:
I installed the i386 disk, with the default kernel, and then added my own 2.6.14.3 kernel. I've got modules turned off, never liked them much. It seems that the init scripts are still trying to load modules, and it's complaining about something in /dev failing, but the system runs fine from what I can tell. Is there something I need to clean up?
When I get home I can be more specific about my kernel config. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
engelsman
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 131
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:04 am Post subject: do you need udev instead of devfs? |
|
|
I installed the 1.5.1 ISO, with a 2.4 kernel and then built a 2.6 kernel. A couple of weeks ago I did a 'lunar update' and had some problems with missing devices. It seems that the newer 2.6 kernels require 'udev' rather than devfs. You can read more about this on my User Talk page. Scroll to the section The first 'lunar update' and fallout near the bottom.
If this is the cause, but you need more than this hint, I'm afraid you will have to wait for more of an expert than me to guide you. You can also try 'real-time' help on the #lunar irc channel.
The wizards on #lunar certainly keep helping me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofar
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: 2.4 -> 2.6 migration |
|
|
| please follow the 2.4 -> 2.6 migration documents on the wiki - indeed you will need udev and some more stuff installed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RedKennedy
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 57
Location: The Moon
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once you start using 2.6...You'll need to get used to udev not sucking like devfs.
_________________
In Soviet Russia, ISOs install you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sycomonkey
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 2
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stuff in /dev is something I'm terribly unfamiliar with. I understand that it points to the hardware, but I have no clue how, so I don't even know what devfs actually is, or why udev is better. I mean, I can mount -t vfat /dev/hda3 /mnt/other, but I don't understand how /dev/hda3 can be a file, if it's a device.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofar
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:14 am Post subject: devices |
|
|
| Quote: | | I can mount -t vfat /dev/hda3 /mnt/other, but I don't understand how /dev/hda3 can be a file, if it's a device |
/dev/hda3 is a "device node" - literally it is nothing more than a "special file" that represents (in some form) a physical "device" or "system". you can "rm /dev/hda3" but that doesn't destory the physical device - only the way UNIX systems interact with hardware and systems.
/dev/hda3 isn't a real file either on your filesystem - it's an "inode", and as such doesn't exist as a real file - think if it as a way for programs to interact with system devices that are supported in the kernel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The X Reality
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: Ease of Use |
|
|
| This device representation system was designed with the original Research UNIX, and stuck. Isn't it easier just to run formatting and partitioning commands on a file, instead of on a mounted partition directory like Windows? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofar
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: stuck? |
|
|
| Quote: | | Isn't it easier just to run formatting and partitioning commands on a file, instead of on a mounted partition directory like Windows? |
this does not compute... are you telling me that the device node system should be hidden from the ordinary user? Sure that will work but people actually need to understand the concept of a hard disk too in order to be able to use it (correctly or not).
like it or not but the device node system will stay. Window$' device model only hides structure from users, a very bad thing.
Making good user applications is a completely different discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
