Re: Modules packaging policy - call for discussion

[Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>]

#include <hallo.h>
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, Apr 08 2006, 09:14:14AM]:
> On  6 Apr 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> 
> > #include <hallo.h>
> > * Sven Luther [Thu, Apr 06 2006, 08:09:46AM]:
> >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:12:08PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So, directly using make-kpkg as was the recomended way until now
> >>>> is no more supported ?
> >>>
> >>> Recommended by whom? :-) I did not explore the issue in detail,
> >>> but we
> >>
> >> By Manoj :), as well as dh_make -k too.
> >
> > make-kpkg or m-a, that does not matter, they basically use the same
> > command line interface introduced by Manoj and slightly refined.
> 
>         What was the slight refinement?

Let's see... KPKG_DEST_DIR was the first one, we have discussed that
years ago and it was accepted well AFAICS. And there are additional
targets that m-a-infected rules file provide, used to predict the file
location and debug the build environment.

OTOH some things are not implemented, and nobody has asked for them:
KPKG_EXTRAV_ARG, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL, ROOT_CMD, UNSIGN_CHANGELOG,
UNSIGN_SOURCE, APPEND_TO_VERSION, INT_SUBARCH.

The last thing is interesting - I don't exactly know how to deal with
crosscompilation. Maybe you have a hint how to reliably establish the
the correct environment to build modules consistent with what the user
wants to do.

Eduard.


-- 
<Rhonda> Ah!
<Rhonda> bootsplash != bootsplash
<Rhonda> Sag das doch gleich.
<mr_claus> das sind zwei getrennte dinge