2.6.35.10-74 compilation (and build) problems

[Mr Dash Four]

> I then copied YOUR config (per your email) to .config
> I then ran
> make old config
>
> and it ended up asking me a huge plethora of questions.
> I simply answered by pressing the Enter key.
>
> Now:
> If the config file you had sent was the RESULT of
> STARTING with your 2.6.34.x  config file AND
> running
> make oldconfig
>
> I would not have seen all those questions pop up
> when I ran make old config using your .config.
>
> So, I think you did something wrong.
Thanks JD.

What I did initially is copy my .34.x .config file and after that I ran 
"make oldconfig", assuming that for any new/missing options that there 
are (i.e. the difference between the .34 and the new .35 version of the 
kernel) I will be asked for. That is, what I thought, the sole reason of 
running the oldconfig target.

Having *just* done diff comparison between the 'stock' .config and my 
.config (the one I attached here) - which I thought *should* amalgamate 
all the options between the 2 versions available (i.e. the result of 
running make oldconfig) - I discovered that quite a few of the options 
present in my .config are not there!

The omission of a crucial group, which in my opinion produces the error 
I described in my original post, is this:

CONFIG_DRM_VMWGFX
CONFIG_DRM_NOVEAU**
CONFIG_DRM_NOVEAU_BACKLIGHT
CONFIG_DRM_NOVEAU_DEBUG

The above produces, among other things, noveau.ko (marked with '**' 
above), which is the driver used for my display here. Having also 
scanned the stock-produced initramfs and the initramfs file generated 
after I install the kernel, I can confirm that drivers/noveau/noveau.ko 
is NOT there (in my 'custom-build/generated' initramfs file), so the 
source of my not-so-good experiences with the .35 kernel, I think, has 
been established.

The question is - have I did something wrong by 1) copying an 'old' 
(.34) .config; 2) running make oldconfig; and 3) make menuconfig, 
thinking that the oldconfig target will take care of the options which 
are missing in the 'old' version of the .config file and ask me to fill 
in the gaps (i.e. asking all those questions)?

If that is what is supposed to happen, than the oldconfig target is not 
doing its job as there are plethora of kernel options I have not been 
asked, nor were they included in the resultant .config file (the example 
with CONFIG_DRM_NOVEAU I have given above).

If, on the other hand, I have done this the wrong way and the oldconfig 
target is supposed to be used only between minor revisions of the 
kernel, then, as I did not know that, this is something I will bear in 
mind in the future.


> I have been building kernels for more than 35 years,
> so I know what I am saying is correct.
I do not question your ability in any way, I am grateful for the help 
you provided me with. That, unfortunately, cannot be said for the other 
two window-licking jamooks who 'participated' in this thread!