[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Question] Backporting ACPI fix to Buster kernel?



Hi,

On 6/2/21 5:46 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
In general the best way to reach that is to make sure it reaches the
upstream 4.19.y stable branches by asking upstrema to backport the fix
to the series. If it is applicably this is not a problem in most
cases. As in the Debian stable release we follow upstream 4.19.y then
the fix will be included automatically at some point.

Thanks, Salvatore. I reached out on upstream's stable mailing list, and Greg KH replied that the patch doesn't apply cleanly and I can backport it and sent the patch. So I git-cloned the stable tree and checked out branch linux-4.19.y, but I'm unable to compile it (without making any changes).

I first tried the approach described in the Debian Kernel Handbook:
$ cp /boot/config-4.19.0-16-amd64 .config
$ scripts/config --disable MODULE_SIG
$ scripts/config --disable DEBUG_INFO
$ make oldconfig
$ make clean
$ make-deb-pkg
...
make[4]: *** No rule to make target 'debian/certs/debian-uefi-certs.pem', needed by 'certs/x509_certificate_list'. Stop.

I then found the instructions for compiling the kernel from the Debian Handbook for Buster[1], but it stops before even compiling anything:

$ cp /boot/config-4.19.0-16-amd64 .config
$ make oldconfig
$ vim .config # add CONFIG_TRUSTED_KEYS=""
$ make clean
$ make-deb-pkg LOCALVERSION=-plaur KDEB_PKGVERSION=$(make kernelversion)-1
...
dpkg-source: info: use the '3.0 (quilt)' format to have separate and documented changes to upstream files, see dpkg-source(1)
dpkg-source: error: unrepresentable changes to source
dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -i.git -b . subprocess returned exit status 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/package/Makefile:75: deb-pkg] Error 1
make: *** [Makefile:1390: deb-pkg] Error 2

What is the proper way to compile the upstream 4.19.y kernel, can anybody help?

Thanks,
Laurențiu


[1] https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.kernel-compilation.html


Reply to: