Re: Kernel Recompile
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote: However, I feel
Raul> that what the code does should be documented, so that those who
Raul> feel the urge to do it manually can be referred to the
Raul> documentation. Unfortunately, with the current state of
Raul> affairs, such folk have a valid objection.
>>
>> What valid objection? What, pray, does the kernel-package do which
>> is special (apart from not making very many mistakes any more)?
>> What should be documented?
Raul> Manoj, you're too touchy.
Touche.
Raul> I've been presuming that kernel-package is required if we want to
Raul> guarantee that loadable modules work.
And this is what I am questioning. Why is kernel-package
required? It does nothing special (which is the reason you can't find
documentions -- it does nothing out of the ordinary at all).
If this presumtion were true, then the current priority of
kernel-package would be a critical bug. It isn't.
Loadable modules work just fine with a kernel built the
traditional way. Think about it. (The whole world, even the whole
Linux world, is not Debian, thank god).
Raul> kernel-package doesn't actually guarantee that any config
Raul> options are set any specific way, but it provides solid support
Raul> for keeping modules distinct (much better than what you get
Raul> from "make modules-install" using the distributed
Raul> makefile... which perhaps implies that something like this
Raul> support should get folded back into the upstream sources... but
Raul> that gets rather interesting if you try to factor out dpkg).
Umm, not rteally. All kernel-package does is use dpkg
facilities to make the kernel-image portable. There is no additional
distinction between the modules than you would get just raw compiling
and installing kernels. I wish what you say were true -- but
kernel-package does not really work any deep magic.
Raul> I've seen some people take the tack that their packages should
Raul> only be used with pre-built debian-supplied kernels. Implying,
Raul> presumably, that people who need something else from the kernel
Raul> (ip masquerading comes to mind) are just out of luck. I don't
Raul> think this is the right approach.
Absolutely.
Raul> Which leads me back to: packages which require special kernel
Raul> features, must document those requirements. This means every
Raul> package which gets involved in loadable modules -- and every
Raul> package which provides loadable modules should mention
Raul> kernel-package (and make-kpkg), I believe, as well as what is
Raul> known about kernel option requirements.
Nope. kernel-package does nothing special for loadable
modules. It just takes the ordinary steps for compiling kernels, and
does not make careless mistakes or forget a step. (Oh, there are
other advantages, but none relevant to this discussion).
Raul> Finally, because we can't make the requirement that some people
Raul> have to build their own kernels go away, I think that packages
Raul> which provide modules should also provide a clean way of
Raul> building new modules-package instances. At the moment, that
Raul> means building a source .deb and muttering under one's breath
Raul> about how we need a proper source packaging system.
This is already handled by kernel-package and modules (look at
pcmcia modules). I think that packages that provide sources in the
location designated by kernel-package, and are supposed to be built
at the same time as the kernel is, should indeed depend on
kernel-package. However, this is not true for packages that just
provide loadable modules.
There _is_ an issue with packages providing kernel modules,
but it is at build time, not at installation time (wish we had source
depends). The dependency on kernel-package may make things easier for
people to *compile* the modules on a different kernel. However, once
compiled, the modules package does not depend on teh kernel-package
any longer.
Also, this is again a matter of convenience -- people do
compile add modules without make-kpkg all the time.
I guess what I am trying to say is that kernel-package is a
convenience thing, but not strictly required. (then again, higher
level languages are not strictly required either -- real programmers
program in HEX).
manoj
--
"Our Constitution ... gives to bigotry no sanction." George
Washington
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: