Re: apt-get linux-source vs apt-get source linux
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'.
> I have randomly picked the first method, and am very surprised that the
> resulting kernel has version 3.2.23, while the stock wheezy kernel is
> 3.2.0. Shouldn't linux-source give me the sources for linux-image?
They are the same sources. However the build system for the
source package 'linux' overrides the release string to reflect the
current kernel ABI. This is explained in chapter 5 of the kernel
handbook.
> 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
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Reply to: