How To Upgrade Linux To The 2.6 Kernel

An anonymous reader writes "Here's a good computer project for the long labor-day weekend. KernelTrap has posted a howto detailing eight steps to upgrade your GNU/Linux OS from the 2.4 stable kernel to the 2.6.0-test development kernel. Complete with screen shots, the end result sounds to be well worth the effort." Since chances are most people will be upgrading anyway once 2.6 is deemed release-worthy, it's always worth learning the upgrade procedure well.

Comments

I'm having trouble!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I followed all the steps, then this is what happened:

-bash-2.05b$ uname -a
Darwin Bruce 7.0.0b1 Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0b1: Tue Jul 29 15:27:33 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-470.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

I'm really confused, any ideas?

Re:I'm having trouble!!!

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

Me too! I carefully followed all the steps. There were a few errors, but nothing that looked important.
This is what I get:

C:\WINNT\system32>uname -a
'uname' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

release-worthy?

[geeveees]

"Since chances are most people will be upgrading anyway once 2.6 is deemed release-worthy,"

IMHO it already is :) I've been using it ever since the first -test was released, patched it with Andrew Morton his -mm and it's fast and solid for me!

If you haven't tried it out already, go download -test4 now! Even if it's just to see if all your hardware works, if you report any problems now you don't have to deal with them when 2.6.0 is officially "stable".

Seems complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't I just download one file, double-click on it to install, and re-boot the computer?

gcc 2.95?

[Psiren]

Anyone know why they still require gcc 2.95? Or is this a minimum? Will it compile and run with gcc 3.3.x without problems? I was under the impression they tried to target the current stable version of gcc on each new major release.

Re:gcc 2.95?

[Daniel Phillips]

Anyone know why they still require gcc 2.95? Or is this a minimum? Will it compile and run with gcc 3.3.x without problems? I was under the impression they tried to target the current stable version of gcc on each new major release.

There is still an architecture or two that requires gcc 2.95 to compile properly (unless you're running Sparc 32 you are probably OK) and there are some developers still fond of it because of 20% or so faster build speed. The cord will likely be cut in the next cycle.

Gcc 3.x has worked just fine for me for the past couple of years. I switched at 3.0.7 and didn't have any problems with kernel builds, though 3.2+ is recommended, because of C++ binary compatibility.

Debian Sid has gcc 3.3.2 at the moment, and Redhat switched to the 3 series a year or so ago.

2.6 ROCKS

[Quinn]

As noted in the article, the build output is much cleaner (simple status lines for each section/module being built, not the whole gcc cmdline), the make options are now fully documented (with make help), and make is simplified down to `make all' and `make install'/`make modules_install'.

I'm not particularly fond of the new make xconfig, but didn't give it much of a chance. I went with `make menuconfig' and ncurses instead.

Performance is noticably improved. Not just "some people told me it's better and well, maybe it is a little", but actual tangible improvements. Even typing into xterms seems faster. (I did enable the preemptible option, but this seems even better than when I did it with the old patch to 2.4.)

This is the most pleased I've been with a new kernel in ~6 years of using Linux. Highly recommended!

Re:release-worthy? - Not quite there on SPARC!

[TheScienceKid]

Perhaps it is release-worthy to those on an ix86 platform, but I had to modify include/smp.h to get it to compile on sparc, moving #include into the #ifndef __ASSEMBLER__ section to avoid the redefinition of ALIGN that caused compiling to fail.

Re:thor's howto:

[dzym]

Of course, that would be:

apt-get install kernel-image-2.6

Might as well get it right, eh? :)

Here's Two Kernel Testing Articles for You

[MichaelCrawford]

Back around when 2.4 was released I wrote two articles about how to help test the kernel.

You can help the kernel developers immensely by testing your kernel methodically and thoroughly rather than just casually trying it out.

It's also important for you to test new kernels, even stable kernels, before putting them to use on a production machine. Even if they work well for everybody else, you may be blessed to discover your very own bug.

Also realize that because Linus can issue a new kernel anytime he feels like it, there is no particular requirement that a kenel be tested before its released. It's happened a number of times that "stable" kernels have been released that have turned out to be quite broken, especially on non-x86 architectures.

So please read, enjoy, and put to good use:

• Why We Should All Test the New Linux Kernel
• Using Test Suites to Validate the Linux Kernel

The OSDL kindly prepared Japanese translations but for some reason have taken them offline. I have copies though and will try to post them sometime soon.

There are other articles on web application quality and C++ programming, with more to come. So far they are all under the GNU Free Documentation License.

I am actively seeking more translations if you want to help out.