Re: apt-get linux-source vs apt-get source linux
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:12:43AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> (asked before on debian-user, but no one there seems to now)
>>
>> I'd like to rebuild the stock Debian wheezy kernel with an additional
>> patch. According to
>> http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html,
>> there are two ways to do this.
>>
>> Either I can install the linux-source package (apt-get install
>> linux-source), unzip the .tar.bz, apply my patch and run 'make deb-pkg'.
>>
>> Or I can install the source of the linux-package (apt-get source linux),
>> and run 'fakeroot debian/rules source', apply my patch, and run
>> 'fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_amd64'.
>>
>> Can someone explain to me which method I should use in which situation?
>
> If you want a highly customised kernel then use the binary package
> 'linux-source'. If you want to make some small change to an official
> linux-image package then use the source package 'linux'.
Alright, thanks!
>> In addition to that, the custom package comes with 449 modules taking
>> 427 MB of space, while the official one ships 2848 modules taking 106
>> MB. The lower number is expected because I used 'make localmodconfig',
>> but why are the custom built modules so huge?
>
> Most likely you left debug information (CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO) enabled.
> Some of the official linux-image packages are built with debug
> information, but there is a post-processing step that strips it into a
> separate binary package. If you use the upstream build system then
I suppose this sentence was supposed to end with something like "...you
have to disable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO, but if you use the 'linux' source
package, you can keep it enabled"?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
Reply to: