kernel: portage vs. source

corcovado · Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:38 pm Post subject: kernel: portage vs. source

Hi,

I just joined so please excuse me if this is a dumb question or it's been asked already (didn't know how to search for it)

I don't have a net connection, but I got hold of kernel vanilla sources for 2.6.5 in a tar.bz2 ball.

Can I get portage to recognise it and build the source tree for me, or should I just manually tar xjpf the kernel source tree out and configure and compile independently of portage?

cadaker · Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:51 pm Post subject:

Installing kernels without portage can lead to annoying problems. Try putting the tarball in /usr/portage/distfiles (or whatever dir you use) and run

Given M. Sur · Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:56 pm Post subject:

Except that should be:

corcovado · Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:59 pm Post subject:

thanks for the quick replies, I'll get to it.

cadaker · Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:59 pm Post subject:

Pink · Veteran Joined: 24 Jul 2003 Posts: 1062

Do it manually in /usr/src.

It takes less time in the end, don't forget to include a symlink to the new kernel.

(ln -sf /usr/src/linux-2.6.5 /usr/src/linux).

Then configure and compile as normal (emerge would simply extarct the tarball to /usr/src anyway, the rest is exactly the same as before).

Kernels are the one thing I never do on an emerge.

corcovado · Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:11 am Post subject: information contrast

OK, I got some contrasting information on this thread. Yes, it should be done through portage, and no, it shouldn't. If I can, I'd like to work out why this is so.

From what I heard before I joined gentoo, portage was good for avoiding dependency hell. Is that why maybe kernel compiling isn't where it shines best?

I put my tarball in distfiles, but I don't know how to get portage to recognise it. The --help option was quite good on binary package inclusion, but fell quite short when it came to source tarballs. Am I missing something? Gentoo was meant to be oriented towards sources usually.

Titeuf · Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:02 am Post subject:

For kernels it's really not necessary to use portage, as you still have to compile and install it yourself.
You can just extract the sources to /usr/src/linux-2.6.5 and then you get the same that when you've done with emerge =vanilla-sources-2.6.5.
Emerge just downloads and extracts the sources automatically.

cadaker · Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:31 pm Post subject:

No, there is another thing that portage does except for unpacking the tarball. It also notes that certain dependancies have been filled, virtual/alsa, that is. If you install a kernel by yourself, you'll probably have to inject development-sources and add

redshift · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 26 Nov 2003 Posts: 98

Well, think of it this way - if you emerge the vanilla sources, all portage does is download and unpack it, with the side benefit of taking care of dependencies without injecting. Why not use portage? It does the same thing with the same tarball. (which you don't have to download manually, I might add.)
_________________
Tom

corcovado · Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject: thanks, but

Thanks for the replies, but I've decided to go the portage way, but once I've put the tarball into distfiles, how do I get portage to recognise it and include it, ready for emerging?
Simply can't find the switch for that in the emerge helpfile.

cadaker · Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:38 pm Post subject:

Well, if everything goes ok (which we sincerely hope), if portage is told to emerge just that kernel version, it will recognize the tarball is already present and use that.

The command to install just version 2.6.5 is