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

Re: bug in "make-kpkg modules_image"



Hi,
>>"Richard" == Richard E Hawkins Esq <hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu> writes:

 Richard> It seems that "make-kpkg modules_image" runs the pcmcia
 Richard> config script, with a string of \n's to take the
 Richard> defaults--forcing the package defaults, rather than the
 Richard> current config.  I had to edit the Makefile to change the
 Richard> default to that it would use the source directory rather
 Richard> than the currently loaded kernel.

	Nope. This is what the kernel-package does:
______________________________________________________________________
MODULE_LOC := /usr/src/modules
...
modules-image modules_image: configure
ifndef MODULES_ENABLED
        @echo Modules not configured, so not making modules_image
else
        -for module in $(MODULE_LOC)/* ; do \
            (cd $$module; \
              ./debian/rules KVERS="$(version)" KSRC="$(SRCTOP)" \
                             KMAINT="$(pgp)" kdist_image; ); \
        done
endif
______________________________________________________________________


	In other words, for all modules located in /usr/src/modules;
 change directory to each in turn, and run ./debian/rules in each
 directory, telling hte rules file the kernel version, the location of
 the current kernel source, and who the maintainer is supposed to be
 (the person trunning make-kpkg.)

	No strings of \n's at all. Nothing to force the defaults. It
 even provides the location of the kernel sources.

 Richard> Is this a bug, or is there a way around that I didn't find
 Richard> in the doc's?  

	If a bug, this is a problem with the modules debian/rules file
 -- but I do not know enough to know if indeed this is a bug.

	manoj

-- 
 The wonderful thing about a dancing bear is not how well he dances,
 but that he dances at all.
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


Reply to: