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

Re: "m-a" vs "make-kpkg"

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:43:41PM +0100, Gilles wrote:
> I'm interested in finding out why my experience of "m-a" doesn't seem
> to agree with yours.
> Maybe I didn't read the man page carefully enough; this is the invocation
> I used:
>   m-a build -t -u $MA_DIR -k $KERNEL_DIR $MODULE

I have never used the -u option.  I have used the -k option at times.

> where $KERNEL_DIR is the kernel source directory used to build the
> kernel image and "in-kernel" modules.
> This directory contains a "conf.vars" file that contains:
> VERSION          = 2
> PATCHLEVEL       = 6
> SUBLEVEL        = 14
> EXTRAVERSION     = -vs2.1.0-rc5
> Debian Revision  = 3:custom.1.0.0
> KPKG_ARCH        =
> do_parallel      = -j3
> fast_dep         = -j3
> And the debian package built by "m-a" did not include the "+g2".

Well looking at module assistant it appears to grab the KDREV from the
changelog or something of the kernel-source/headers.

On the other hand I have NEVER used a + in the append-to-version and I
am not sure it is even supposed to be allowed, it certainly is
discouraged to use + in the version or packagename in general.  I always
just have the append-to-version use dashes between things.

> I certainly agree that if one does not have the actual kernel source
> tree available, it is handier to use "m-a". Otherwise, "make-kpkg"
> is equally fine I guess.
> The worry is that the *result* is different, for me at least.

Well try not using + in your append-to-version and maybe it will work
better.  Often I actually just edit the makefile to add what I want
appended, so I won't forget it when building with make-kpkg.

Len Sorensen

Reply to: