[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#883547: flash-kernel: please allow flavourless kernels



Package: flash-kernel
Version: 3.88
Severity: wishlist

Hi!
If for whatever reason you want or need to build your own kernels, the
preferred way these days is "make bindeb-pkg".  It is also a good idea
to use CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO=y, which marks the exact tree used to
build the kernel.

However, with this option, the version is _appended_ after local version,
thus making it hard to add that "-armmp" string.

I found no way to override this, other than manually editing
--- functions~	2017-08-03 05:01:54.000000000 +0200
+++ functions	2017-12-05 02:39:54.113903579 +0100
@@ -775,11 +775,6 @@
 	done
 fi
 
-if [ "$kfile_suffix" = "$kfile" ]; then
-	echo "Kernel $kfile does not match any of the expected flavors ($kflavors), therefore not writing it to flash." >&2
-	exit 0
-fi
-
 echo "flash-kernel: installing version $kvers" >&2
 
 mkarch="$(get_mkimage_architecture $kvers)"


Just allowing an empty string flavour doesn't work, as it'll still want a -
after the version.

Thus, it would nice if there was an override -- or, perhaps, I'm holding it
wrong?


Meow!
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: armhf (armv7l)

Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-00115-g3d7c587c4c1b (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)

Versions of packages flash-kernel depends on:
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]  1.5.65
ii  devio                  1.2-1.2+b1
ii  initramfs-tools        0.130
ii  linux-base             4.5
ii  mtd-utils              1:2.0.1-1
ii  ucf                    3.0036

Versions of packages flash-kernel recommends:
ii  u-boot-tools  2017.09+dfsg1-3

flash-kernel suggests no packages.

-- debconf information excluded


Reply to: