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

Re: flavours and modules: /lib confusion

from "man make-kpkg":

     --flavour foo
              This   option   is  now  deprecated  in  favour  of

--append_to_version places modules in the place you expect,
and coexists well with modules.  I use it all the time.


On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:25:35AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> hi folks,
> i am using a separate machine to compile kernels and module packages.
> the arguments to make-kpkg are --revision with an increasing revision
> number, and --flavour, where i specify the machine name. the result is
> e.g. a kernel-image-2.4.17+fishbowl package.
> now, i am also compiling pcmcia-cs and alsa-source. the compilation
> works and it's all happy...
> *except*: kernel-image-2.4.17+fishbowl writes its modules to
> /lib/modules/2.4.17, but e.g. the pcmcia-modules package that i
> generate puts its modules under /lib/modules/2.4.17+fishbowl.
> subsequently, depmod doesn't see these, and unless i cp -dR the
> ./pcmcia directory in the /lib/modules/2.4.17+fishbowl tree to
> /lib/modules/2.4.17, i ain't gonna get pcmcia working.
> i think that the bug is actually in the kernel-image package, because
> if i choose to use flavours, then it should employ them all the way.
> the kernel image in /boot is called vmlinuz-2.4.17+fishbowl, and so is
> the config file, it's really just /lib/modules that does it
> differently.
> your thoughts? i think that kernel-image ought to respect flavours the
> same way that module packages do!
> -- 
> martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
>   \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
> don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.

Reply to: