Re: kernel-package Help

[Jens Schmalzing <j.s@lmu.de>]

Hi,

Manoj Srivastava writes:

> > To clarify the problem there are two source packages,
> > kernel-image-1-i386-2.4.26 and kernel-image-1-i386-2.4.27, each of
> 
> These don't seem to be packages generated by kernel-package,

Of course not.  Horms is talking about the *source* packages, which
are really called kernel-image-2.4.2{6,7}-i386.

> > Most of these packages have names of the form kernel-*-2.4.26-1-*
> > and kernel-*-2.4.27-1-*.
> 
> Again, these are not image package names that can be generated using
> kernel-package.

Sure they can.  The debian/rules file of the above-mentioned source
packages uses "make-kpkg --append-to-version -$(debnum)-$(flavour)".
The value of debnum being 1 in the above example.

> > packages of the form kernel-*-2.4-*, for example
> > kernel-image-2.4-386.  These latter packages are provided by both
> > source packages, hence the problem.
> 
> If kernel-package had been used, then these packages would not
> have been created by two different source packages -- partof the
> design decisions taken for kernel-package.

The sole purpose of those meta packages is to depend on the most
current real kernel-image package.  So nothing is built for them at
all.

> I must say I am disappointed in the new kernel image management;
> Herbert used to keep kernel-package in the loop when making changes,
> and tus there was no disconnect between user-created packages and
> Debian official packages.  From what I can tell in this exchange,
> that is no longer the case.

You must be mistaken; the debian/rules file in question has not been
changed for almost a year.

Regards, Jens.

-- 
J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe!
Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!