Re: creating kernel udebs from kernel-source
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:17:45AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto
| wrote:
|
|> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
|>
|> Hi Sven,
|>
|> Sven Luther wrote:
|>
|> | | Imagine all the .udebs for all the modules plus the kernel,
|>
|> Let say for example that i386 builds 14 debs (386, 686, 686-smp,
|> k7 and k7-smp flavours) + 1 _all.deb (the docs). linux-kernel-di
|> generates approx 40 udebs.
|>
|> That means 55 binary packages (and i would say in the worst case
|> since i386 is one of the arch that generates more modules than
|> any other iirc)
|
|
| Oh, no, you are oh so wrong. you forgot all the modules .udeb, and
| they are loads of them.
Sven chill down before accounsing people to be so wrong..
the numbers above includes kernel udebs and modules udebs for i386
in the flavours (from the ubuntu archive that builds what i wrote
above and before).
You don't generate udebs for each flavour because there
is not necessarely the need for it. In the i386 example there is only
one set of udebs coming from the -386- flavour.
| Like waldi said, it was around 200 packages 6 month ago, and
| probably over 400 today,
My request of being in CC has been ignored and I lost part of the
messages.
|> | multiplied by the number of architectures plus the number of |
|> architectures having 2.6 kernels.
|>
|> ??? this makes no sence to me at all. and we are only talking
|> about one kernel.
|>
|> You only multiply once by the number of arch.
|
|
| Nope. you have the 2.4 kernels and the 2.6 kernel, so you add the
| total number of kernels which is between the number of arches and
| two time the number of arches.
The patch doesn't merge kernel-source-* into one big kernel source
that includes ver 1.0 to 2.8.
It applies to only one kernel source (let say 2.6.9) and from that one
generate propers udebs for the arch where it is building.
| Actually, you have to take every available flavours as you
| mentioned above. On powerpc this is 5 for 2.4 kernels and 3 for 2.6
| ones for a total of 8. (2.4 : powerpc, powerpc-small, power3,
| power4, apus, 2.6: powerpc, power3, power4, soon to come ppc64
| iserie-legacy, generic and generic-power4 additionally, and i have
| had at least one case where the UP kernel failed and a SMP kernel
| is needed, so maybe we should double some of these).
You don't build udes for all the possible flavours simply because
there is
no need to. You build udebs only for the minimal amount that you need.
I doubt anybody will ever require -smp udebs, right?
Or for example you don't need k7 udebs, since the 386 will do.
There are clearly exceptions like ppc that needs more.. i don't disagree
and i did never questioned this situation.
|> | | That was by far the most .udebs any package could hold, and
|> it did | break.
|>
|> eh? how? what is difference of having 40 udebs from package foo
|> or 40 udebs + 15 debs from package bar?
|
|
| The difference is between having (in the powerpc case) 114 .udebs
| in one package and 127 in another, over having 241 in the conjunct
| package, which breaks the packaging tool if i am not wrong.
Are you mixing 2.4 and 2.6?
Fabio
- --
Self-Service law:
The last available dish of the food you have decided to eat, will be
inevitably taken from the person in front of you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=+O+f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: