* maximilian attems <max@stro.at> [Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:47:13PM +0200]: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 06:51:12PM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote: > > * maximilian attems <max@stro.at> [Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:20:33PM +0200]: > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > there was a bug about initramfs not created for kernel-package kernels. > > > > I am trying to build a live CD with a kernel-package kernel and the > > > > initramfs is still not created: > > > first of all kernel-package is legacy, use make deb-pkg. > > As long as make deb-pkg can't build neither header nor source > > packages I personally just can't switch to deb-pkg. So even though > > I'm not the original bugreporter I just want to mention that I don't > > want to see kernel-package called legacy. > I prefer to call things by their name. > The simple conclusion is that nobody really needs those things. I do need it, as well as >14000 other users have it installed. http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=kernel-package > As they are easy to add in linux-2.6 and nobody proposed it. kernel-package is easy to use and I get what I need. > source deb package!? simple git clone gets more data. Doesn't integrate into package management. > headers to built against? again same git clone settled it. Doesn't integrate into package management. And especially if you just want to build an additional *-source kernel module (nvidia, open-vm, virtualbox,...) you definitely don't want to wait for a git clone to be finished. Sorry maks, but just because you don't need it doesn't mean that no one else won't need it either. I'm happy to migrate to anything else (linux-2.6, make deb-pkg,...) if those tools provide what I need, but until then I prefer to continue using kernel-package and not calling it legacy. regards, -mika-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature