Re: Kernel compiling....
On Sat, 07 May 2005, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
<snipp>
> > "# work around idiocy in recent kernel versions" i find that output
> > quite wierd. localversion was meant for distributions and is much
> > easier to use than to change EXTRAVERSION in the Makefile.
>
> You are just displaying your ignorance. That message is for a
> workaround in kernel scripts, where they just delete ./debian on
> clean (like, when dpkg-buildpackage is run) -- whether or not they
> created the dir.
nevertheless i don't find that your explanation, matches aboves string?
also i thought that had been resolved upstream.
> >> > also the ouput isn't up to the nice Kbuild of the 2.6, which will
> >> > be the common case (afair you also support older non maintained
> >> > trees).
> >>
> >> The output from kernel-package is mostly the output from the
> >> underlying kernel build system, so I am intrigued by this comment.
>
> > well most of the time yes, but not always. for example call
>
> > ~/src/linux-2.6.11-rc4$ make config
> > CLEAN scripts/basic CLEAN scripts/kconfig
> > ..
>
> > ~/src/linux-2.6.11-rc4$ fakroot make-kpkg clean /usr/bin/make -f
> > /usr/share/kernel-package/rules real_stamp_clean make[1]: Entering
> > directory `/home/max/src/linux-2.6.11-rc4' test ! -f .config || cp
> > -pf .config config.precious test -f Makefile && \ /usr/bin/make
> > ARCH=i386 distclean make[2]: Entering directory
> > `/home/max/src/linux-2.6.11-rc4' ..
>
> > but i agree that this is an implementation detail.
>
> And the difference in putput style, which kernel-package has
> always had, is somehow technocally releveant?
the kbuild system has improved very nicely during the 2.6 stage,
i would expect the same standard for the "kernel-package".
> If this is the tenor of the complaints you have, I think your
> case is pretty darned weak.
hmm, indeed i never complained don't know what your reffering to?
please explain?
> > yup you are right, responded to quickly, make defconfig doesn't make
> > sense in that case. but that would make sense for volatile as an
> > config for 2.6.8 is not complete for A, who is taking 2.6.11.8 from
> > kernel.org and it will get worser. the main difference for using a
> > config out of the svn are the modular ide and fb patches by xu,
> > which aren't mainline.
>
> Frankly, starting with the 2.6.8 config is way better than
> starting with defconfig, or nothing.
>
> manoj
will depend on the sarge cycle? ;)
but anyway i guess your idea is postsarge.
--
maks
Reply to: