Bug 32081 – [PATCH] make kernel.h generation more robust

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.

Bug 32081 - [PATCH] make kernel.h generation more robust

Summary:	[PATCH] make kernel.h generation more robust

Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification:	Retired
Component:	initscripts (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	1.0
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Bill Nottingham
QA Contact:	David Lawrence
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2001-03-17 07:57 EST by Andrew Bartlett
Modified:	2014-03-16 22:19 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2001-03-22 11:31:39 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Patch to rc.sysinit for better kernel.h generation (1.05 KB, patch) 2001-03-17 07:58 EST, Andrew Bartlett	no flags	Details \| Diff
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Andrew Bartlett 2001-03-17 07:57:22 EST

This patch (attached) allows the kernel.h to be generated even if the
current kernel is not installed from an RPM.   It uses 'uname -m' to
determine the arch value.

It also correctly generates the macros in kernel.h, with actual values of 0
and 1 (the old version breaks /usr/include/linux/rhconfig.h, at least the
version I have.).

The reason I looked into this is that I wanted to rebuild sendmail, so
theres also a dependeny there.

Comment 1 Andrew Bartlett 2001-03-17 07:58:38 EST

Created attachment 12865 [details]
Patch to rc.sysinit for better kernel.h generation

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2001-03-22 11:31:34 EST

Is that patch reversed?

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2001-03-22 12:12:10 EST

Yes, it apparently is. Added in 5.79-1.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.