Re: non-debian kernels -- bizzar?
I agree here. I do a lot of kernel hacking in my spare time and I
_NEVER_ use the debian kernel-package scripts. I have my own which
I use instead. I just recompile a new kernel, copy zImage to
/boot/kernel-2.1.47 (or whatever version I have installed), copy
system.map to /boot/system.map-2.1.47 (or whatever version I have
installed), and then I have a line in init.d/boot that changes the
kernel and system.map symlinks in / to point to the correct one for
the currently running kernel. I then add some stuff into /etc/chos.conf
and run chos (which I use instead of LILO and friends). I find that
simply leaving the default kernel installed, but completely ignoring
it works well for me. I don't know how many people actually use the
debian kernel-package scripts, but I know I find them to be tedious.
I just bypass the whole thing.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.inconnect.com/~andersen/
email: andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> I would like to have opinions about this from others.
>
> At the moment, the debian kernel packages assume that everyone
> has the debian kernel-image installed.
>
> I've always viewed those debian kernels as something only usefull
> to for the first day of running Debian, be able to build your own
> kernel, and then get rid of any debian kernels, and debian kernel
> packages.
>
> Apparently, the debian-kernel package maintainer views this as
> "a bizzar situation". (i.e., using debian-kernels).
>
> The question arose, as, when my attempts to remove the debian-kernel
> package failed, as I happened to be running the same kernel version
> as the kernel-package I was removing. The debian-kernel package has
> an explicit "if current kernel = this package then return error"
> in the prerm.
>
> I suggested to change that "then return error" to something like
> "then ask user for confirmation that he really wants to remove this
> kernel, and if user doesn't answer "yes", then return error".
>
> The debian-kernel maintainer views my request as very uncommon,
> and suggested that I raised the issue on debian-devel. So, here
> I am.
>
> Does anyone else think it should be possible to remove the current
> running kernel, if you answer "yes" to an explicit question that
> informs you about the possible dangers? Or, do I simply have to
> reboot into kernel 2.0.29 (also still on my HD), then remove
> the debian kernel package-2.0.30, and reboot into my own 2.0.30
> again? Really, I don't see why I should have to go through all
> this trouble, or what benefit there is in making users go through
> all this. (Yes, I know I can also change the "exit 1" to an "exit 0"
> in the prerm, but the example above is just to show how easy it is
> go get around the test without really knowing what you do).
>
>
> Yes, I know I can also build my own kernel with the debian-kernel
> package, but why do I have to?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org
> #!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
> $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
> lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
> #what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
> Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
>
>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: