#$!@

[JJ Neff]

Unfortunately as hinted at before this is not Fedora specific.  I did as much
screaming at my monitor trying to get a wireless nic to run on a laptop under
Debian.  Everytime I tried to compile or install the source it didn't match my
kernel by one character.  Then I'd find out that the version of kernel (from
deb package) had no installable source (running testing).  I then couldn't get
VMware to run due to kernel version being slightly different than source and
then don't get me started on version of GCC.  Seems the kernel I was running
had been compiled with gcc3.6 but I was running gcc 4 (default gcc in testing).
Then I finally found a kernel that had been compiled with 3.3.5 and the gcc
3.3.6 I was able to trick my machine into using (changing enough symlinks) was
close enough. Now I'm practically afraid to reboot :-)  OK I made the change in
Grub to boor old kernel by default.  I don't need cutting edge when there are
bills to pay.  A couple folks on the #debian IRC make a very strong argument
for sticking with 2.4 and I may do that.
 
I no longer want to compile kernels (thanks to a certain BOB M. on the list who
got me used to using plain old kernels from packages- that just worked).

JJN

--- Richard Hubbard <rhubby at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> That is the problem.  I never expected different
> kernel versions to work together.
> what i expected is that if redhat issues a major
> release and calls it FEDORA CORE 4, then the kernel
> sources labeled as FC4 should match with the binaries
> released as FC4.
> 
> What I don't expect is a major release called Fedora
> Core 4, and the kernel sources to be whatever the hell
> version we want to pump out this week and call FC4,
> even though we are several release numbers away from
> what we released when we pumped out FC4.
> 
> When redhat released all of their prior Fedora Core
> releases, only ONE kernel version was labeled as FC#.
> All of the others were given different numbers, but
> none were labeled as the 'official' fedora core
> version. This way, most intelligent people would be
> able to tell which kernel source rpm went with with
> kernel at a glance.
> 
> With FC4, I have now stumbled over three different
> releases, all called FC4.  My error was assuming that
> redhat would stay consistant with their naming
> conventions.  
> 
> I also expected that when I did a yum install
> kernel-devel, I would get the kernel number that I am
> currently running.
> 
> wrong again.
> 
> I really don't want to have to recompile a kernel,
> just so I can get some !!@#$$%@#$%@#$&^#$%^#& wireless
> network card to run, simply because redhat refuses to
> supply the source code for the kernel that they
> shipped with a MAJOR RELEASE of their software. (I'm
> not running FC4test#, this is the 'gold' release.) 
> 
> 
> --- "David W. Aquilina" <david at starkindler.us> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Slow down there. The problem you experienced is not
> > specific to Red Hat / Fedora. Anything in this
> > wonderful world of Linux related to the kernel
> > itself is going to be very specific and not tolerant
> > of any errors whatsoever. Kernel versions and
> > variants always must match exactly, and you'd have
> > this problem were you attempting to install the
> > kernel-devel package, the GFS packages, or a
> > commercial product such as EMC PowerPath. The
> > Uniprocessor kernel and SMP kernel, for these types
> > of situations, are entirely different kernels. You
> > wouldn't expect a patch written against a 2.4 kernel
> > to work as is against a 2.6 kernel, would you? 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > David W. Aquilina
> > david at starkindler.us
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> ______________________________________________________
> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
> 



	
		
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/