IMHO it is easier I think this is a good thing. Also if you have amny similar machines having your kernel image as a .deb makes it *very* easy to install it on many machines. Also it never forgets to run lilo :). The main part I like about it is it remembers all the messy little steps so I can focus on getting the config like I want it and then move on. On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 05:45:34PM +0200, MaD dUCK wrote: > 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 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- BOFH excuse #232: Ionisation from the air-conditioning
Attachment:
pgpEnyXOYT_cx.pgp
Description: PGP signature