Can a kernel rpm be built for i686 on x86_64?

[William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone]]

Hi all,

      Years ago, I successfully built an i686 kernel using a machine running
the x86_64 distro.  The kernel seemed to run fine.  The only trouble I
found was when I tried to build an external module, the build failed.  It
turned out that the kernel-devel package had a binary called genksyms.
That was still being built as an elf64 binary.  I can no longer find that
binary, so I believe it's now OK to build all my packages for i686 and
x86_64 at once on an x86_64 machine.  Is this recommended?  If not, why
not?

           TIA.


--
           Bill in Denver

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:15 AM, William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone] <wacker@...> wrote:

Hi all,

    Years ago, I successfully built an i686 kernel using a machine running the x86_64 distro.  The kernel seemed to run fine.  The only trouble I found was when I tried to build an external module, the build failed.  It turned out that the kernel-devel package had a binary called genksyms. That was still being built as an elf64 binary.  I can no longer find that binary, so I believe it's now OK to build all my packages for i686 and x86_64 at once on an x86_64 machine.  Is this recommended?  If not, why not?

There is no problem, and take a look at mock. This is the way to go.

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:15:59 -0700 (MST)
"William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone]" <wacker@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>       Years ago, I successfully built an i686 kernel using a machine running
> the x86_64 distro.  The kernel seemed to run fine.  The only trouble I
> found was when I tried to build an external module, the build failed.  It
> turned out that the kernel-devel package had a binary called genksyms.
> That was still being built as an elf64 binary.  I can no longer find that
> binary, so I believe it's now OK to build all my packages for i686 and
> x86_64 at once on an x86_64 machine.  Is this recommended?  If not, why
> not?

It should work fine. It does with the base kernel from kernel.org and I
do this all the time.

Alan

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone]]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:15 AM, William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone] <wacker@...> wrote:
>       Hi all,
>
>           Years ago, I successfully built an i686 kernel using a machine running the x86_64 distro.  The kernel seemed to run fine.  The only trouble I found was when I tried to build an external module, the build failed.  It
>       turned out that the kernel-devel package had a binary called genksyms. That was still being built as an elf64 binary.  I can no longer find that binary, so I believe it's now OK to build all my packages for i686 and x86_64
>       at once on an x86_64 machine.  Is this recommended?  If not, why not?
>
>
> There is no problem, and take a look at mock. This is the way to go.
>

Thanks.  I knew I could do it in Mock, but with the small number of builds

I do, it seems like overkill.  If I understand you correctly, I should be
good to go, even without Mock.

          Thanks again.

--
          Bill in Denver

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone]]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:15:59 -0700 (MST)
> "William F. Acker WB2FLW [phone]" <wacker@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>       Years ago, I successfully built an i686 kernel using a machine running
>> the x86_64 distro.  The kernel seemed to run fine.  The only trouble I
>> found was when I tried to build an external module, the build failed.  It
>> turned out that the kernel-devel package had a binary called genksyms.
>> That was still being built as an elf64 binary.  I can no longer find that
>> binary, so I believe it's now OK to build all my packages for i686 and
>> x86_64 at once on an x86_64 machine.  Is this recommended?  If not, why
>> not?
>
> It should work fine. It does with the base kernel from kernel.org and I
> do this all the time.

>

      Unfortunately, the problem is still there.  Here is a grep for 'ELF
64' from the output of the file command run over the installed list of
files from kernel-devel built on an x86_64 system, running on an i686
system.
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/basic/docproc:                                 ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/basic/fixdep:                                  ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/basic/hash:                                    ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/conmakehash:                                   ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/kallsyms:                                      ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/kconfig/conf:                                  ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/mod/mk_elfconfig:                              ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/mod/modpost:                                   ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/pnmtologo:                                     ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/selinux/mdp/mdp:                               ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.9-96.spk.fc11.i686.PAE/scripts/unifdef:                                       ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped

      It's too bad.  That would have simplified the build pross
considerably.

--
           Bill in Denver

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines