Re: kernel-package/kernel-image was Re: New kernel packages available
Sorry about the turnaround time on this, life's been like that lately.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> 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
> dependencies.
Well, one thing here is a style/attitude issue - adding additional
dependencies for the kernel build is not such a bad thing, and it means
that there is a central place to fix such problems instead of a host of
kernel-image packages. Kernel-package is a complex piece of software
with a lot of potential for problems, but I still think it is a better
idea to use that.
> 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.
Yeah, I'm working with the bitkeeper right now also. Although when it
came down to it I needed to use a straight kernel.org 2.2.15pre10 so
that the Universal IDE patch would apply cleanly. We should definitely
sit down and figure out what patches we need.
> Comments? What can the kernel-patch approach really do that kernel-image
> can't?
Well, one of the motivations for the kernel-patch packages, if I
understand correctly, was the x86 IDE kernel flavor (although I'm
greatly confused, as I can not find the IDE patch package any more, so
I may be misremembering). This patch now applies to powerpc as well;
in fact, I need it to boot my desktop. And, being an occasional kernel
hacker, I've also got a few local patches I regularly apply. Thus I
would prefer to do kernel packages in a way that easily supports
building with alternate sets of installed patches.
I think it's more useful, on the whole.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: