>I detect a very distressing trend. Since the 2.3.13 release, which took
>several days to fix so it would compile, I have not been able to download
>a kernel that will compile. The 2.3.31 release of a development kernel
>(December 6) had, not only problems with missing variables like
>"memory_start", etc., but also had incomplete structures, missing
>structure members, etc., all over the place. Most of the errors had to do
>with initial ram-disk support which is required on many systems that use
>modules. I spent about two weeks of my spare time trying to make 2.3.31
>compile then gave up. If anyone is interested, I can provide a copy of
>.config but that's not the problem. The problem is that Linus and others
>used to make sure that kernels would compile. This is no longer being
>done. Instead, we have 'secret' versions of kernels retained by
>distributors while the publicly accessible kernels are junk.
[SNIP]
>I have been contributing bug-fixes to Linux since June of 1995, the
>first being a fix to make the AHA-1542 SCSI board work. I have not
>complained that, over the years, every piece of code that had my
>name on it, ended up with my name removed. At least the end result
>was a reliable kernel and that's all I really wanted. I note that my
>name is not even in the list of contributors anymore. Now the trend is
>clear.
>
>So, where is the real version of the kernel?
Every 2.2.x kernel that I've downloaded has compiled without
trouble whatsoever. I originally downloaded 2.2.0, and have
patched with the bz2 patches ever since. I've not had any
trouble whatsoever, and I've been using a more or less stock
RedHat 6.0 system for a compilation environment.
With 2.3.x I've also had no trouble compiling anything, except
where there have been widespread problems with something and it
is well known. A simple small patch is usually released very
shortly after such a problem arises.
If anyone consistently has problems with compiling, and those
problems are well and beyond the widely known problems that get
discovered quickly after each release, then they should strongly
question their environment. I'll bet that they are not using the
recommended tools for compilation.
These problems occur only with devel kernels, and possibly on
very rare occasions with stable ones. Saying that these
compilation problems puts things in the distributors hands is
rediculous. I've NEVER seen ANY distribution release a dist with
a development kernel. (That is speaking of the mainstream widely
used dists like RedHat, Caldera, etc - MAIN RELEASES - not beta
releases).
If Caldera's tools can't compile a kernel, then apply their
errata, or use RedHat or some other dist.
The linux kernel is never going to be held hostage by anyone in
the manner you suggest/imply.
In my experience, the inability of a kernel to compile (if not
widely known as a devel bug in a devel tree that many people
experience), is usually the result of improper tools, outdated
tools (see Changelog), major changes like the page/buffer cache
stuff that broke the FS's, etc..., or bad hardware.
I don't do barely any kernel devel right now, but I obtain,
compile every devel kernel, and usually without a hitch.
When you vary from the advertised tool chain however, problems
can and do creep up quickly.
Good luck tracking the problem down!
TTYL
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateJoin the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/