suse pretending to be redhat possible??

The place to post if you need help or advice

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

suse pretending to be redhat possible??

Postby svensl » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:44 pm

I am currently running suse9.3. I have software I would like to install that requires redhat 7.2 kernel 2.4. When trying to install the software it gives me an error saying I have the wrong platform. Is there any way to pretend to me redhat 7.2 so that the software won't comlain? Sounds silly, but asking never hurts. By the way, using export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4 won't help.

Thanks,
Sven
svensl
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: suse pretending to be redhat possible??

Postby M-Saunders » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:50 pm

Is it looking for an /etc/redhat-release file? If so, you could create a fake one, although that may not fix things entirely if it really needs kernel 2.4.

M
User avatar
M-Saunders
LXF regular
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:14 pm

Postby svensl » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:53 pm

Thanks for the tip, but I have no idea how to create such a file and where to put it. Any tips?
svensl
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:05 pm

Postby nelz » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:21 pm

Do you have a file called /etc/suse-release? If so create a link to it with

Code: Select all
ln -s /etc/redhat-release suse-release


as root. This is how Mandrake did it.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8532
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby svensl » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:47 am

I tried what you suggested, but unfort. it did not work. It still gives me an error saying: "Compatible platform PC Intel and compatible, Linux Kernel v.2.4".

I am still new to Linux. Is there a difference between Suse and Redhat except for interface and software packages? I mean the kernel should be the same.

If you have another idea please let me know.

Cheers.
svensl
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:05 pm

Postby Rhakios » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:22 pm

No, SuSE comes with a 2.6.x series kernel. In fact there are no 2.4.x kernels available to install with 9.3:

------------------------------------------------------------------
*** zgrep kernel /var/lib/pin/ARCHIVES.gz
------------------------------------------------------------------

---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-bigsmp-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-bigsmp-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-default-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-default-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-smp-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-smp-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-source-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-syms-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-um-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-um-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-xen-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/kernel-xen-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/i586/um-host-kernel-2.6.11.4-20a.i586.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/noarch/kernel-docs-2.6.11.4-21.noarch.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/x86_64/kernel-default-2.6.11.4-20a.x86_64.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/x86_64/kernel-default-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.x86_64.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/x86_64/kernel-smp-2.6.11.4-20a.x86_64.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/x86_64/kernel-smp-nongpl-2.6.11.4-20a.x86_64.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/x86_64/kernel-source-2.6.11.4-20a.x86_64.rpm
---> ./DVD1/suse/x86_64/kernel-syms-2.6.11.4-20a.x86_64.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/nosrc/kernel-bigsmp-2.6.11.4-20a.nosrc.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/nosrc/kernel-default-2.6.11.4-20a.nosrc.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/nosrc/kernel-smp-2.6.11.4-20a.nosrc.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/nosrc/kernel-um-2.6.11.4-20a.nosrc.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/nosrc/kernel-xen-2.6.11.4-20a.nosrc.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/src/kernel-docs-2.6.11.4-21.src.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/src/kernel-source-2.6.11.4-20a.src.rpm
---> ./DVD2/suse/src/kernel-syms-2.6.11.4-20a.src.rpm
Bye, Rhakios
User avatar
Rhakios
Moderator
 
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

Postby jjmac » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:58 am

It may be using the return from "uname -a" to get the current kernel. I gave a try with an echo to /proc/version, but it didn't work.

You may just have to put a 2.4.x in your boot directory, and boot with that just to do the sw install.

Unless anyone knows how to fool "uname" :)


jm
jjmac
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Nigel » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:41 pm

jjmac wrote:
Unless anyone knows how to fool "uname" :)



Easy... just create a script that echos the string you want, then put it in a directory that comes before /bin in your path.

Assuming that the installer isn't fully pathing the uname command :)
Hope this helps,

Nigel.
User avatar
Nigel
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby Nobber » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:52 pm

A geekier way would be to recompile your kernel, having first edited the Makefile to change PATCHLEVEL to 4. :?
800 LINES ERIC - GET BACK TO PYSKOOL
User avatar
Nobber
LXF regular
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Nova Scotia

Postby Nigel » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:56 pm

Nigel wrote:
jjmac wrote:
Unless anyone knows how to fool "uname" :)



Easy... just create a script that echos the string you want, then put it in a directory that comes before /bin in your path.

Assuming that the installer isn't fully pathing the uname command :)


sorry - forgot to say you should call the script uname

it would also be possible to set up an alias in your bash shell , something like

alias uname="echo Hello World"
Last edited by Nigel on Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hope this helps,

Nigel.
User avatar
Nigel
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:56 pm

What software? Do you have acces to the source code of the software?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:06 pm

And please. Do not mess with uname when installing software. In fact, do not mess with uname at all.
Guest
 

Postby Nigel » Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:32 pm

Agreed, the best option would be to install from source code. Even if you do manage to fool the installer into working, there's a good chance that your SuSE system doesn't have the right version of some of the libraries the software requires.

I doubt either of my suggestions about spoofing uname would work anyhow - I would expect any halfway decent installation script to be checking the versions of the libraries it needs, not just the output of uname :)
User avatar
Nigel
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

Postby jjmac » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:55 pm

Yes ... compiling from sourcewould be the way to go. Sounds like it needs some updating anyway :)

On the 'uname' thing though (grin) it can be fun trying to bypass system facilities ... (evil-grin.png) hehehe. I like the changing the kernel PATCHLEVEL idea too hehehe, looovve it. As long as it doesn't cause any problems with embedded version strings in the src any where that is ...

"The World Is Not Safe, With Such Good People In It" (grin)


jm


jm
http://counter.li.org
#313537

The FVWM wm -=- www.fvwm.org -=-

Somebody stole my air guitar, It happened just the other day,
But it's ok, 'cause i've got a spare ...
jjmac
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Guest » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:13 pm

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa caralho seus burros nao sabem de nada seus merdas e vc administrador cuzao bundaoooo vadio deleta essa porra eu estou mandando palhaço.
Guest
 


Return to Help!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests