Consumer Electronics Linux (CELinux)
basic steps used to create wget http://tree.celinuxforum.org/source/linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 wget http://tree.celinuxforum.org/source/celinux-040503.patchset.tar.bz2 tar xvjf celinux-040503.patchset.tar.bz2 mv linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 patches-040503.release/ patches-040503.release/tpm -t linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 -f patches-040503.release/patchlist -o celinux-040503
quick start to build (2012-11-24) make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 mrproper make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 menuconfig #make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 defconfig make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 dep make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 bzImage include/linux/autoconf.h will exist from git repo but if you update by running menuconfig this will update too
optional steps wget http://vanguard.ucmerced.edu/ccmips-20070927.tar.gz
blah blah blah #export ARCH=arm #export CROSS_COMPILE=/arm-2009q1/bin/arm-none-linux-gnueabi- make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 mrproper make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 include/linux/version.h make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 symlinks make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 defconfig make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 dep #make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 menuconfig make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 bzImage make CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/i686-linux-gnu- ARCH=i386 modules
Note about choice of compiler: At the time that Linux 2.4.26 was released (2004-04-14), the latest released version of gcc was 3.3.3, with 3.4.0 just around the corner (2004-04-18.) gcc 4.1.1 wouldn't even exist for another two years (2006-05-24) so it's not surprising that this combination isn't compatible because gcc tends to get stricter over time. Those errors seem to refer to a gcc extension that was deprecated starting in 3.4 and apparently removed by the time of 4.1.
You can most likely work around this without too much fuss, but IMO
you'd be better off using versions that were historically coincident.
That way you get free validation that it's a stable combination, whereas
with time-machine mix-and-match you have to determine that yourself.