kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

skale · 2007-03-18 16:18:22

My /boot is getting full, so I would like to integrate the Ubuntu and Arch kernels, and boot both distros with the same one. There are two ways I can think of:

1. Use the Arch kernel to boot Ubuntu. Tried, and it hits module trouble. Mouse doesn't work, and I didn't test anything else, but I would presume lots of other stuff would not work. It wants 2.6.20-ARCH. I symlinked it to both the Ubuntu 2.6.11-generic, but it wasn't satisfied, and still didn't load them. I linked it to the lib/modules/2.whatever on the Arch partition, and it said "too many symlinks" or something to that effect. Beautiful. I have a feeling that this stuff is a lot more complex than I previously thought.

2. Just compile a heavyweight kernel with all the modules built in. Not tried yet, but sounds like a pain in the rear, what with the separate patches and everything.

Or, I could just go with the current setup, and cross my fingers the next time aapt-get update tries to stuff a new kernel into /boot. I have been deleting the old ones, but if I forget...

.:B:. · 2007-03-18 16:55:39

May I ask how big your /boot is, and what makes it's so stuffed?

Most manuals or guides recommend 100 MB for /boot, and if you see the size of a normal kernel that should be plenty for at least five or ten of them, if not more...

skale · 2007-03-18 17:11:34

24MB. 16MB used. A lot of oversight on my part, I know now. I really don't want to repartition though. Using just arch it was plenty, but with two kernels in there it gets a little stuffy.

Also, I am kinda curious to see if it would work.

.:B:. · 2007-03-18 17:14:02

Hehe .

How about using the Gparted Live CD?

http://puzzle.dl.sourceforge.net/source … .3.4-3.iso

It's only resizing, no partitioning .

Last edited by B (2007-03-18 17:14:19)

hacosta · 2007-03-18 18:38:38

or you can make a /boot directory in ubuntu (or arch) and remove /boot from the fstab, and rearrange grub accordingly..
it you need /boot in a partition i suppose thet what you are doing is possible, and should me easy if you compile your own kernel.
good luck

iBertus · 2007-03-18 21:13:18

IMHO, you probably will not be able to do this without some issues. You should just ditch Ubuntu for Arch :-)

buddabrod · 2007-03-18 21:21:57

Just compile a kernel with everything built in that you need.

 du -sh /boot/*
42K     /boot/config-2.6.20-no2
42K     /boot/config-2.6.20-viper4
281K    /boot/grub
12K     /boot/lost+found
104K    /boot/memtest86+
800K    /boot/System.map-2.6.20-viper4
1,6M    /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.20-dark4
1,6M    /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.20-no2
1,6M    /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.20-viper4

1,6MiB isn't that big, is it?

Last edited by buddabrod (2007-03-18 21:23:15)

skale · 2007-03-18 23:17:16

I think I'll go ahead and compile some stuff tonight, in between my Literature essay.

What would be potential problems with using both Arch and Ubuntu patches? Or neither? Or just one set?

buddabrod · 2007-03-19 00:23:32

skale wrote:

I think I'll go ahead and compile some stuff tonight, in between my Literature essay.
What would be potential problems with using both Arch and Ubuntu patches? Or neither? Or just one set?

No problems are to be expected, as long as you compile all needed stuff into your kernel

I recommend you to use a kernel patchset like viper or no-sources. Viper4 runs here without any problems since it has been released, so maybe you want to give it a try.

iBertus · 2007-03-19 00:28:03

skale wrote:

I think I'll go ahead and compile some stuff tonight, in between my Literature essay.
What would be potential problems with using both Arch and Ubuntu patches? Or neither? Or just one set?

I would use those patches required by Ubuntu as it will likely have more dependancy on kernel patches for the rest of the system than Arch would. Since Arch is a pretty blank slate out-of-box it should not require any kernel patches for pre-configured services to work. As stated, Ubuntu may not be so nice.

buddabrod · 2007-03-19 00:34:40

iBertus wrote:

skale wrote:
I think I'll go ahead and compile some stuff tonight, in between my Literature essay.
What would be potential problems with using both Arch and Ubuntu patches? Or neither? Or just one set?
I would use those patches required by Ubuntu as it will likely have more dependancy on kernel patches for the rest of the system than Arch would. Since Arch is a pretty blank slate out-of-box it should not require any kernel patches for pre-configured services to work. As stated, Ubuntu may not be so nice.

Ubuntu works nicely with a vanilla kernel without any further patches (without bootsplash). Stuff like fbsplash is part of most patchsets, so that should be no problem.

Last edited by buddabrod (2007-03-19 00:35:15)

lloeki · 2007-03-19 08:06:12

out of the blue question: how would you handle modules (if any) in /lib/modules (since they're on different partitions) ?

Last edited by lloeki (2007-03-19 08:06:47)

buddabrod · 2007-03-19 12:22:48

I myself don't use any modules. If someone needs something like the proprietary nvidia driver, just symlink the sources and then compile it on both systems.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-03-18 16:18:22

kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#2 2007-03-18 16:55:39

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#3 2007-03-18 17:11:34

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#4 2007-03-18 17:14:02

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#5 2007-03-18 18:38:38

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#6 2007-03-18 21:13:18

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#7 2007-03-18 21:21:57

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#8 2007-03-18 23:17:16

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#9 2007-03-19 00:23:32

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#10 2007-03-19 00:28:03

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#11 2007-03-19 00:34:40

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#12 2007-03-19 08:06:12

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

#13 2007-03-19 12:22:48

Re: kernel for both Arch and ubuntu

Board footer