[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why debian - longer

On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 09:03:25PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> - not to be nit picky .. but just a comment
> assuming that the /usr/src/linux/.config is configured properly
Comparing compiling a kernel using make-kpkg or the old fashioned way
with both requires the .config file to be modified with make menuconfig
or make gconfig or by hand, or whatever.

> 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 
That's fine.  The great thing about Linux is there is multiple ways to
do things.  You don't have to do things my way, and vice-versa.  See
vi-vs-emacs or kde-vs-gnome.

> > And the cool benefit of this is that you can save the kernel image .deb
> > off incase you ever need to rebuild the system.
> see above
Granted that you could just backup your .config file.  But then you'd
have to recompile your kernel when you rebuild your machine.  If you
have multiple machines with the same configuration, you could copy the
.config file and compile each kernel on each machine.  Or you could
tar+bz2 the /lib/modules/2.[46]* and /boot/vmlinuz* files and do everything
manually.  But I also figure that since I'm letting dpkg keep track of
my files and packages, I might as well let it do that for my kernel
stuff as well.

> - the issue is if it takes them 5 min to do it one way and 50 minutes
>   a different way ... they might take one or the other depending on
>   their goals ( kill time and learn ) or get it done and move on

True.  As long as you figure in time down the road that it could cost
you in maintainence.


Reply to: