Re: kernel-source-2.6.0-test1?
On Monday 04 August 2003 3:43 pm, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:29:51PM -0500, Marino Fernandez wrote:
> > I cannot help you with the debian way... that I found more complex than
> > the regular way.
> >
> > Download a pristine kernel (get 2.6.0-test2)
> > cd /usr/src
> > Untar kernel in /usr/src
> > mv linux linux~
> > ln -s linux-2.6.0-test2 linux
> > make menuconfig or make xconfig
> > make
> > make modules_install
> > Put bzimage in /boot, rename it vmlinuz-2.6.0-test2
> > Update lilo or grub
> > reboot
>
> Please tell me how that is less complex than
>
> $ cd <kernel source dir>
> $ fakeroot make-kpkg --config menu kernel_image
> $ sudo dpkg -i ../kernel-image-<whatever the version was>.deb
> $ sudo reboot
>
> I just don't get it.
>
This discussion if kind of pointless. I've done it both ways, both work,
but...
It is more lines the stardard way, I give you that. But it is trivial since
most of the time you spend recompiling your kernel is spent... well,
compiling.
And then you just have to cut an paste the kernel to wherever it goes, and
deal with the boot loader, as oposed to installing a large package, ... In my
case I feel that it takes longer if I do it "the debian way", and also you
loose track of whats going on.
In conclussion, I think "the standard way" as opposed to "the debian way"
gives you a clear idea of whats going on, more control over the process, as
opposed to the "click'n go" approach that debian uses. But Rich is right...
if you have to install 10 kernels on 10 different machines, having a nice
package you can just click on and forget about it is more efficient. I am
just talking from the perspective of the end user with a couple of
machines... I guess I should have stated that from the begining.
Reply to: