Hi to all of you,

1) Is there a way to install linux without using a distribution ?
2) If not what is the best way to have a real minimal linux installation ?
3) If i install linux from one of well know distro should i ugrade the kernel with package from distribution owner or can i upgrade it with source as mentionned in Kernel_howto ?
and finally ...
4) can i 'Patch' a 2.2.17 kernel with a 2.4.xx kernel patch ?

Thanks for those who answer me ....
May the force be with U

Hi there,

You have put really interesting questions... I would like comment on them as below:

1) You can have linux with distro too.. you can download kernel of your choice and start bulding the system.
And for which you will needing lot of expertise (I Thus suggest you to go with a distro in the beginning).
2) Real minimal installation is possible if you customize your installation to extent possible.
You carefully select packages (see no duplicates).
3) As far as kernel is concerned there won't be any OWNERSHIP issues. They are only distributors of the kernel.
YOu can download and install kernel of your choice.
4) You may install kernel 2.4.xx kernel afresh. But "Pach" would'nt be a possible issue becuase of glib library differences. If you download compatiable libraries together, there should be no issues futher.


Srinivasa.P

Thanks for these answer Srinivasa,

1) Could you please be more explicit ?
3) So why each distributor provide a kernel package if it's the exact image of the one located on linux.kernel.org ?
4) Does it mean that the only prereq to a kernel upgrade is to upgrade the glibc library ?

New question ... is there a 'graphical' or text tree dependencies between package somewhere ?

1) Distributions always try to concentrate themselves around a specific objective. Like debian for example... is more network intrinsic. That way they tend to offer a specialized service. So you can have your own distribution which will address your requirements!

3) Every Distributor tries his levelbest to utilize otherwise extract most possible advantage out of every release. Practically speaking every kernel of a release should be alike.. as they belong to one genetic source!

4) I donot want to limit this pre-requesites to glibc only. This is very much varible in most of the cases. Because any installation on a linux machine demands the "satisfaction of dependencies. Thus when you consider releases 2.2.x and 2.4.x the requirements may vary a lot! But always you can download documentation of that particular kernel with its release. So with which you should be able to ake out necessary changes to be brought in.

Pashupathi Srinivasa/..

Imothep,

When you download and unzip a kernel source, you will find a subdirectory called Documentation. In that directory you will find a file called Changes. In this file there will be a list of files that the kernel is dependent upon. You must download, compile, and install each of these files prior to compiling a kernel. If not, you have little chance of success.

Keep in mind that the version numbers are very important. If the kernel depends upon foo-2.4.1, then foo-2.4.0 will not satisfy the dependency. You must have foo-2.4.1 or greater. On my system (Red Hat 7.0), if I want to check the version of a file (foo in this example), I issue the command at the prompt:

rpm -q foo

And the output would be something like:

foo-2.4.0-5

If this was the case, then I know I'd have to download the source for foo, compile and install it prior to compiling and installing the kernel.

Patches are used for sequential kernel upgrades only. In your example, you cannot patch from 2.2.17 -> 2.4.xx. If you have 2.2.17, then you can patch to 2.2.18 then to 2.2.19. You cannot patch straight from 2.2.17 to 2.2.19. But you can compile 2.4.2 and install it right next to your 2.2.17 system. And if you configure your boot parameters correctly, you can choose between each which kernel you would like to run. That way you can work out any problems you might have had with your kernel compile. I've seen some threads where people post how many kernel images they have and some have upwards of 6 or 7. If they configure their boot parameters correctly, they could boot from any of the 6 or 7 if they wish.

As far as a minimal installation, you could go real minimal and use a program called "tom's boot disk" (http://www.toms.net/rb), which is a fully functional Linux system that will fit on a floppy disk. Just don't try to do any serious work (like you would with a full install) or try to save any files to the disk. As a matter of fact, some people configure a firewall using a minimal system and just a floppy disk to run it.

If you do buy a distro (which I recommend if you haven't played with Linux before) you can use whatever kernel source you want. That's the beauty of being free. Be advised that if you decide you want to be on the bleeding edge of kernel developement, whenever there's a new release the kernel.org sites can get jammed pretty quick.

I know it's wordy, but hopefully it helps shed some light in addition to Pashupathi Srinivasa's remarks.

<edit>corrected url for toms root boot</edit>

[Edited by billsabub on 04-08-2001 at 11:43 PM]

Thanks Bill for this detailled answer.
I already a fully functional Mandrake distro but i'm still frustrated because it install a lot of things i don't need .. i think
I'll try to install a really small debian to understand dependancy between package.
My next nightmare will be to install X from xfree86 website.. i hope i don't need the packaged form from debian of X ...

hi... am a newbie and have some queries with reference to imothep's last post...

i am under the impression that if you select the expert install option in Mandrake, you get to choose the specific packages you want? (I could be wrong coz i don't really know much... pls feel free to correct me if i'm wrong...) i've haven't really tried this yet as i am now concerning myself about linux security...

i've tried a Debian install successfully and i really like the fact that you can ignore all that you do not need right from the point of installation... it just feels so... lightweight!
disadvantage here is... i don't know what to do after that... like how do i install X windows onto my box? and netscape? and if i want to configure e-mail services... how? and is the learning curve steep?

actually, i am also looking to venture into OpenBSD once i get enough time...

and btw, if anyone knows any good, free websites i can go to learn about generic unix security measures or linux/BSD security stuff, please let me know, thank you all in advance!

---
Thank God for the free *nixes!

I also think that Debian feels lightweight. I've been using it for only about a month but I already love it!

If you want to install software onto your puter via internet, you can use Debian's excellent package manager, APT. Then you can just install packages with command apt-get install <package name> and that's it! For example, you can install X windows with apt-get install task-x-window-system and it installs it. Another way is to just install a package that needs X windows, for example some window manager, like blackbox: apt-get install blackbox will install blackbox and every other package that it needs, including X windows.

Yeah, I know... you must get your internet connection and apt working first. Here are some helpful files about configuring net connection and apt:
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/nhf/intel...deb/index.html

You may also find some info (not directly about security, though) at Debian's home page or http://www.linuxdoc.org