Re: why debian - longer
On Sunday 14 November 2004 0003, somebody named Alvin Oga inscribed this
message:
> > Too many extra hoops?
> >
> > $ fakeroot make-kpkg -rev `hostname`.1 kernel_image
> > $ sudo dpkg -i ../kernel-image....deb
> > update lilo/grub [if needed]
>
> assuming that the /usr/src/linux/.config is configured properly
>
> most non-debianites will probably do:
> make .. make bzlilo .. make modules ... blah ..
>
> tar zcvf /usr/src/linux-2.4.latest.bin.tgz \
> /usr/src/linux-2.4.latest\
> /lib/moudles/linux-2.4.latest\
> /etc/lilo.conf\
> /boot/grub/menu.list
>
> to install ..
> same as all distro .. just install it
>
> in my book, there is no significant advantage to make-kpkg + dpkg
Out of curiosity - why? If I understand correctly, the kernel-building
procedure you outlined is about five steps or so, while it takes me two
(well, three actually):
# make-kpkg clean && make-kpkg kernel-image
# dpkg -i ../kernel-image[version].deb
dpkg automatically updates grub (via the update-grub script), and I can
manage multiple kernel versions fairly easily in synaptic, or get rid of
outdated kernel versions with a simple
# dpkg -r kernel-image[version].deb && update-grub
or something like.
Now, granted, I started on debian and this is the only way I've ever
built/installed kernels, but I think only having to type two or three
commands is an advantage over five, especially since I don't have to do
that long tar step. I don't compile kernels frequently enough to remember
that in between, and not having to do it probably saves me a couple
minutes. So, out of curiosity, is there an advantage to *not* using
make-kpkg & dpkg?
(Please note that I respect your oppinion, I just want to know your
rational. If there's a better way to do anything, I want to know. :))
NRH
--
It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for
two years. - Tom Lehrer
Reply to: