On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 05:45:34PM +0200, MaD dUCK wrote: > i love debian. seriously, apt is a work of genius and the entire > system is exactly how i want it - unlike SuSE or RedHat. since i do a > fair bit of developing and since i always want to have at least one > machine that's cutting edge, i do a whole lot of kernel compiles. > > in the past, i have always used .debs unless a software was too old or > not available, in which case i beat the tarball around and installed > into /usr/local. by now, i do it the "debian way," and use > dpkg-buildpackage to create the .deb, which i then install. i haven't > done so on kernels yet, even though i know about make-kpkg > > anyway, my question is: while i am currently running a system that's > .deb only, the kernel is still compiled and installed the standard > way, me taking care of /boot and /etc/lilo.conf. what advantages are > in make-kpkg'ing as opposed to the regular way? Well, for one thing, you can compile kernels on your 1GHz Athlon instead of your old 486 :) Since kernel-package creates a package, it can be installed anywhere. The package created also does some sanity checks when you install it in an attempt to prevent you fropm shooting off your foot. Note that installing a kernel deb and then placing it on hold prevents dselect/apt from automatically upgrading your kernel for you (personally I'd like to install kernels myself :) -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com | -- Patton
Attachment:
pgpxu86zV1Qcg.pgp
Description: PGP signature