Adding one or two mods to an existing /lib/modules

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:26:03PM -0500, Paul King wrote:
> ftp.ca.kernel.org, a *.tar.bz2 file

Redhat/Fedora applies many patches to their kernels.  Unless your source
has the same patches, it is not the same kernel.  Never mind what the
original version it was based on is.

> > If it wasn't a package from your distribution, then it isn't the same
> > version/patches.
> 
> It is a matching version number: both are 2.6.12-1. Fedora adds an
> additional ".1381_FC3" to the versioning.
> 
> Not even if I modify the LOCALVERSION variable to equal 1381_FC3? I
> can't imagine the additional "1381_FC3" designation as making it so
> totally different as to be incompatible. Does not the "6" refer to the
> patchlevel, so that the sublevel "12-1" must be even less significant
> than a patch level? And "1381_FC3" would be even less significant still?

The only difference between 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 is a patch.  They are
rather incompatible module wise in many cases.  The patches can make
huge changes, or they can make insignificant changes that don't affect
modules at all.  Without reading the patch changes you won't know.  FC
makes a lot of changes to their kernel.  A patch can change the
arguments of a kernel function, or even the name of it.  That would
seriously change the module interface for anything using that function.

> Meaning that I would have to rebuild all the modules and redistribute them.

If you want to do it properly and in a way that is easy to deal with in
the future when you upgrade the kernel again, then yes.  If you like
having random files all over your filesystem that you have to manually
clean up later, then go ahead and just copy a few files after you
somehow manage to build them properly.

> I am not sure either. I will check.

Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml