Re: kernel compiles
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?
One advantage of using make-kpkg which I have used many times is that
if you want to compile a kernel or modules on a fast computer to
install on a slower one all you need to do is copy the .deb to the
slower computer and install it, whereas you can't do something like
'make modules_install' except on the computer where you are compiling.
If you have ever tried compiling on a 386, you will see the advantage
of doing this.
Bob
Reply to: