Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:19:11 -0600 From: "E.S." <bsdterm@HotPOP.com> To: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make buildkernel says device atapicam is unknown!!?? Message-ID: <200211140219.11408.bsdterm@HotPOP.com> In-Reply-To: <3DD3577B.5010501@owt.com> References: <200211132359.26336.bsdterm@HotPOP.com> <200211140144.18808.bsdterm@HotPOP.com> <3DD3577B.5010501@owt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've considered it, but isn't -STABLE a bit less stable than -RELEASE, since the source in it is newer? I just don't want to get stuck running my daily desktop OS (FreeBSD) only to have a kernel panic or have XF86 lockup on me when I'm busy doing a programming assignment or an essay or something (of course, these things happen on -RELEASE (actually, just the XF86 lockups (I don't think I've ever had a kernel panic), and I think it's due to Matthew Dodd's unofficial Nvidia driver (or X) somehow; hence, I want to upgrade to 4.7 so I can use the official (albeit beta) driver!), but theoretically, they're rarer)... I suppose I'll consider it; lots of people seem to run -STABLE without too much trouble. :) I'd just feel more comfortable running -STABLE on a less-critical system (actually, if I had a box to test on, I'd run -CURRENT)... Thanks for your help, in any case! -ES On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:57 am, Kent Stewart wrote: > E.S. wrote: > > Well, 4.7-RELEASE was released before Nov. 1, 2002 (on Oct. 10). As I > > understand it, 4.7-RELEASE is can be obtained by cvsup'ing to RELENG_4_7 > > (and generally the only patches that are applied to -RELEASE are security > > patches)... whereas if I cvsup'd to RELENG_4, *then* I would be getting > > 4.7-STABLE. > > > > But because I'm cvsup'ing to RELENG_4_7, not RELENG_4, I'm getting > > 4.7-RELEASE, not -STABLE... right? > > Yes, and I missed the _7. > > > I may be wrong there; feel free to correct me if I am... :) > > > > In any case, I tried building the kernel before applying those patches, > > and after applying them. The output I quoted earlier is the same either > > way... > > I don't have any way to test what you are doing. My systems are all > various dates of 4.7-stable. You have all of the security advisories > that require rebuilding your system. Have you thought about trying > 4.7-stable? It would have everything and the atapicam. > > Kent > > > -ES > > > > On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:15 am, Kent Stewart wrote: > >>E.S. wrote: > >>>I figured out my make buildworld problem I mentioned earlier (I'd > >>>uncommented NO_OPENSSL=true in my make.conf - big mistake!), and now > >>> that world builds OK, I'm having kernel build problems. > >>> > >>>I'm building 4.7-RELEASE (cvsup'ing to RELENG_4_7), and here's all the > >>>output for "make buildkernel KERNCONF=KERNELCONF4": > >>> > >>>-------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>>>>>Kernel build for KERNELCONF4 started on Wed Nov 13 23:45:17 CST 2002 > >>> > >>>-------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>===> KERNELCONF4 > >>>mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/sys > >>>cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf; > >>>PATH=/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/sbin:/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/bin:/usr/o > >>>b j/usr/src/i386/usr/games:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin config -d > >>> /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/KERNELCONF4 KERNELCONF4 > >>>Don't forget to do a ``make depend'' > >>>Warning: device "atapicam" is unknown > >>>*** Error code 1 > >>> > >>>Stop in /usr/src. > >>>*** Error code 1 > >>> > >>>Stop in /usr/src. > >>> > >>> > >>>I've applied the following of Thomas Cuivre's atapicam patches (from > >>>http://www.cuivre.fr.eu.org/~thomas/atapicam/): > >>> > >>>atapicam-20021031.diff > >>>atapicam-STABLE-config-20021031.diff > >>> > >>>...to source I cvsup'd today (Nov. 13). But I've had this same make > >>>error for the last several days... > >>> > >>>I have all the necessary devices and options in my KERNELCONF4 file that > >>>Cuivre notes on his atapicam page that we need, but the above is still > >>> my output. > >>> > >>>I *can* comment out "device atapicam" in my config file -- and the > >>> kernel appears to build OK (I haven't tried building a full kernel > >>> without atapicam support, I've only tested to see if removing "device > >>> atapicam" from the config file makes a difference) if I do that, but I > >>> really don't want to lose ATAPI burning support using cdrecord, etc... > >>> > >>>Anybody know what's going on here? Suggestions? > >>> > >>>I would post my KERNELCONF4 file, but this list cuts off my messages > >>> when they're some 200KB+ in size (I know, for bandwidth and spam, > >>> etc.)... > >> > >>I don't understand why you are doing part of this. The web page says > >>the atapicam device has been in 4.7-stable source since 1-nov-2002. It > >>sounds like you have basically applied the patch twice. All I did was > >>add "device atapicam" after my atapicd like so > >> > >>device atapicd # ATAPI CDROM drives > >>device atapicam > >>device atapifd # ATAPI floppy drives > >> > >>and did a make buildkernel. The kernel built without any errors. > >> > >>Kent > > > > . To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211140219.11408.bsdterm>