> Personally, I compile and install kernels by hand (i.e. make
> menuconfig; make bzImage; make install) What's the advantage of using
> make-kpkg? I use stable/2.2.20 on my servers and testing/2.4 or 2.5 on
> development boxes.
I used to make them by hand, too, but what I like about make-kpkg is
that if you use it, you get a .deb that you can save off. The .deb
includes your kernel and the modules you built, plus when you install
it, it takes care of the links in / to /boot and also takes care of LILO
configuration, etc. I find that this makes recovery or reinstallation
really easy... I save off a .deb for every different kernel I build, so
it's easy to fall back if I really screw something up with a new kernel.
IMHO, anyway, the move to make-kpkg is worth it unless you're maintaining
several machines with the same kernel that aren't all running Debian.
KEN
--
Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@ieee.org>
Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Attachment:
pgp213mcG7X5X.pgp
Description: PGP signature