You are not logged in.

#1 2022-10-01 06:29:51

Enrico1989
Member
Registered: 2018-07-05
Posts: 121

[SOLVED] Doubt and proposal of clarification in Kernel/Traditional

Hi, I'm reading https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Kernel … ompilation and I have some doubts about the directory names used at that page.

I've got to as far as §4.2 included. In §4.3 I decide to go for §4.3.2, the manual method, which consists in executing

mkinitcpio -k kernel_version -g /boot/initramfs-file_name.img

but from the description of `-k` option I read that

The `kernel_version` name will be the same as the name of the custom kernel source directory (and the modules directory for it, located in `/usr/lib/modules/`).

Now, on the one hand, the "custom kernel source directory" is, based on §2.1, the directory where I created `.config`, i.e. the directory resulting from `tar -xvf linux-A.B.C.tar`, which is named `linux-A.B.C`.

On the other hand, "the modules directory for it, located in `/usr/lib/modules/`" is named, based on §4.1, just `A.B.C`.

The example command, however, is

mkinitcpio -k linuxAB -g /boot/initramfs-linuxAB.img

which makes use of the name `linuxAB`, which is not `linux-A.B.C` nor `A.B.C`.

Does that piece of the wiki deserve an improvement or am I just misunderstanding something?

Last edited by Enrico1989 (2022-10-01 08:41:59)

Offline

#2 2022-10-01 06:38:26

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 30,296
Website

Re: [SOLVED] Doubt and proposal of clarification in Kernel/Traditional

Yeah, it's not particularly clear.

A.B.C would generally translate to a kernel like 5.19.12, which you are then free to rename to whatever you want, for example, linux-enrico (which is the linuxAB in the example).


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#3 2022-10-01 06:55:14

Enrico1989
Member
Registered: 2018-07-05
Posts: 121

Re: [SOLVED] Doubt and proposal of clarification in Kernel/Traditional

I've tried executing the following command

mkinitcpio -k kernel_version -g /boot/initramfs-file_name.img

with various strings in place of kernel_version. The only one that worked is kernel_version == the name of the directory under /usr/lib/modules, e.g. 6.0.0-rc7. This means the name that must be used in place of kernel_version is 100% implied by the name of the directory we untar into. I guess the wiki could be improved in this respect. When can I propose a wording?

Offline

#4 2022-10-01 07:51:34

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 30,296
Website

Re: [SOLVED] Doubt and proposal of clarification in Kernel/Traditional

Proposed changes are best done on the Talk page. Then, if no-one has suggestions or objections, you can make the change to the actual page.


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#5 2022-10-01 08:54:48

Erus_Iluvatar
Wiki Maintainer
Registered: 2010-04-01
Posts: 111

Re: [SOLVED] Doubt and proposal of clarification in Kernel/Traditional

If anyone stumbles upon this topic, the confusion in the wiki page stemmed from the fact that originally the page used a relative path to a kernel image, which became unclear once pseudo-variables replaced the numbered example. The -k flag supports a kernel version number or on x86 / x86_64 only a kernel image. The page was updated today to only use the former, more generic solution as an example.

Last edited by Erus_Iluvatar (2022-10-13 19:46:12)


I'm french, don't mind my mistakes in english.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB