kernel-package/kernel-image was Re: New kernel packages available
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > I did try kernel-image packages; I found that kernel-patch worked much
> > better. I've rewritten its rules almost from scratch. If you really
> > want to stick with kernel-image, I suppose that's OK, but there's no
> I don't like dependencies, and kernel-patch is one extra to build the
> images. The kernel-image packages is from the method the same as for
> i386 and alpha. Without the dependencies we must not play with debhelper,
> kernel-package and other possible buggy packages.
[Back after switching jobs]
I have a working powerpc kernel-image solution. I see this thread never
came to a resolution so we better do it now.
kernel-patch approach allows one to add other generic kernel patch packages
into the build easily. On the other hand, it requires a bunch of
kernel-image approach can be modified to allow for the same generic kernel
patches to be included on top of the standard patch inside the package.
As Dan noted, bootprep.sh in boot-floppies needs modified to work with
this new kernel-image approach...I will take care of that if we go this
One thing we do have to coordinate on is what patches are included. Dan's
prep image won't work on a lot of PReP boxes cause it needs some minor
patches. I've got those in my build but not the comprehensive patch
from Ben H. Since I'm working directly out of BitKeeper these days and
I see Ben and Paul checking support in there too, I was thinking about
just generating a patch from that versus 2.2.14.
I'll post my solution in http://master.debian.org/~porter when my
current rebuild is complete. I'm more concerned about getting images
that work (as in having all the right patches in place) in incoming than
promoting my solution so let's decide what's technically best and move on.
Comments? What can the kernel-patch approach really do that kernel-image
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.