Re: [SOLVED] Re: Hi, I am doing masquarading using my Debian machine
From: H. S. (g_reate_xcalibur_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:34:17 -0500
P.T. Breuer wrote:
> H. S. <email@example.com> wrote:
>>a compilation, I copied my config-2.4.18-bf2.4 from /boot to kernel
>>source directory (in my case it was kernel-source-2.4.22-hs1/). I
> Did you rename it to ".config" and run "make oldconfig"?
>>assumed this would give me the same configuration as I had in my
>>previous kernel. It was not so. I had to manually enable ip_forwarding,
> It *is* so, provided you rename to .config and run make oldconfig.
I have things mixed up here, and could be because I had screwed up my
subject line in my first post in this thread. The first time I upgraded
my kernel, I use apt-get and installed the new kernel, I did not do
anything myself. So I assumed my old config file would have been used --
Since the network did not work, and I checked my interfaces file to see
all were configured properly and that all modules were loaded (for the
two nics), I decided to compile the kernel myself. I was also aiming on
install the new nvidia driver, and I followed the intstructions here:
That page does not tell me use oldconfig as the target :(
>>the options are set correctly as desired -- cannot avoid spending that
>>half an hour going through that ncurses gui afterall
> Of course you can. Editing it and running make oldconfig is enough.
Okay. I will try again shortly, I still have some unresolved issues.
>>I wonder why nobody could suggest this. Nobody has encountered this
>>before? Or nobody does masquarading with Debain (extremely unlikely I
>>would guess, but possible)? :)
> Everyone does masquerading with debian (I at least). Nobody has a
No no, that was not meant seriously. :)
> crystal ball so nobody can see what you are doing. Your vague claims
true. I agree. But if you consider the subejct line as well of my first
message, then I had given most, if perfectly not all,information. The
first symptoms of lost network occured when I automatically upgraded my
kernel. The link between upgrading my kenel using apt-get and then
compiling the kernel myself doesn't appear here, because I was mailing
messages to gname and here on different topics and I might have missed
mentioning that link here.
> that you are doing it all right are wrong. Nobody can tell that.
> If you had told us what you were actually doing as opposed to what you
> think you are doing, we would have been able to correct you.
I didn't think, in my original message in this thread I reported what I
actually did. I may not have pasted *all* the commands, but then how
many commands are there to paste when you do "apt-get -u install kernel
-<>" ? :)
But yes, I shoudl have given the steps I took to compile the new kernel
myself. BTW, I use gmane news to read/post fo Debiain-user. I did report
what I was doing in some of the messages over there (along with the
reference link above) in a different subject thread -- not that it
matters much here.
> It is likely that you did not cause any changes in kernel files that
> you had already compiled, so the make had no reason to recompile them.
I have observed that even if I make a tiny little change, and do a make
using make-kpkg without doing "make-kpkg clean", the make takes the same
time as if it was cleaning itself before making.
> Or perhaps you didn't copy to .config! Who can tell, without you
> telling us!
The first time when I did "apt-get -u install kernel-<>" I do not need
to copy an .config, do I?
>>Anyway, I hope this report helps someone else facing this problem,
> No, it doesn't. But thank you for your hope. What would help people is
> if you learned to report what you observe, not what you think you see.
Perhaps my this message will throw some more light. But I again stress,
if the original message was read along with the complete subject line,
it would have made sense, I did not do anything extra. I did things only
when I began compiling the kernel myself.
> Then you woule report what you are doing, other people could correct
> your accurately reported procedure, and all in all you would set a good
> example, te thread would be over immediately, and you wouldn't have
I have examples where this is not so, where I have just plainly pasted
the output of the commands with permission and stuff, and noboyd was
able to tell exactly what was to be done. And *all* the information was
right there in post -- I know this because when I finally solved the
problem, no additional informatio was necessary other than what appeared
in my post.
But thanks for your advice. I will try to be more careful in future.
-- (Please remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one. Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.)