i love debian. seriously, apt is a work of genius and the entire
system is exactly how i want it - unlike SuSE or RedHat. since i do a
fair bit of developing and since i always want to have at least one
machine that's cutting edge, i do a whole lot of kernel compiles.
in the past, i have always used .debs unless a software was too old or
not available, in which case i beat the tarball around and installed
into /usr/local. by now, i do it the "debian way," and use
dpkg-buildpackage to create the .deb, which i then install. i haven't
done so on kernels yet, even though i know about make-kpkg
anyway, my question is: while i am currently running a system that's
.deb only, the kernel is still compiled and installed the standard
way, me taking care of /boot and /etc/lilo.conf. what advantages are
in make-kpkg'ing as opposed to the regular way?
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
"for art to exist,
for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist,
a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication."
-- friedrich nietzsche