Re: Kernel Recompile
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >>"Roberto" == Roberto Ruiz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Roberto> We (he, he, ups) ... they can't make it standard, because it
> Roberto> is not really needed, and it is not probable that someone
> Roberto> how is *nix trained, expect it to be on his/her box.
> Well, dpkg fails the second criterion too, so a debian
> specific package may indeed break the rule about "expectation of
> existence on a UNIX box", if otherwise deemed important.
I agree, but dpkg is in, if I am not wrong, because it is part of
Debian, in fact, if I where asked, I would say it is the core of the
Debian distribution, for that, it pertains not in a standard
installation, but in a base installation, where it is right now.
What I mean to say was, that during the installation, you get a
message telling you that if you enter dselect select option, it will
have a pre-selectioned set of packages with programs that a *nix user
expect to find in a standard *nix system. That's what is meant to be
the standard installation.
Before that, also on installation stage, you get a message that the
install program needs to find the debian base archive, which is an
archive that contains the minimum set of programs that will latter
help you install more programs, and IIRC, it mentions dpkg, dselect,
If I am not wrong, packages which fall within the first criteria, must
have a priority of standard, and no others, and packages that fall
within the second, pertains to base, please correct mine
interpretation of this if I am wrong.
> So it all boils down to the question of whether it is really
> needed. I think that it should be very strongly recommended that
> everyone compile their own kernel, rather than use the bloated
> generic kernel required on boot disks (which need to have every
> driver under the sun).
Yes, it is a good recomendation that everyone re-compile the kernel in
his/her system, but not necesary, and even if it where necesary to
re-compile the kernel, it is compilable from the ftp.kernel.org
sources (the original sources), and you can install it, latter, if you
don't add a diversion (which I am still investigating on how to do
that), it will get overwritten by a kernel-image package. But, if you
look closely, there is no kernel-image package installed on the base
system, and there is no requirement to do so, then you can install
kernel-sources or untar the original sources and configure and compile
your kernel from there.
What you lose by installing, ops, by un-taring the original source, is
the add as to what are the minimum requirements to compile a kernel,
which are the c compiler, some libs, etc. etc., and maybe you will end
installing more packages than are really needed, or will find yourself
wondering where to find some utility you are lacking, but that is you
problem if you don't follow your distribution "rules".
> And I submit that make-kpkg certainly eases the task of kernel
> compilation; as well as taking care of the ancillary problems, for
> the most part.
Agree again, when I found kernel-package and installed it, and made my
first compilation of the kernel with it, I loved it, is a great tool
to have when compiling your own kernel, but is not necesary, you can
compile your kernel without it, and that will not break your system if
you never install a kernel-image package.
Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation....
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org