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

Re: do I really need "make-kpkg clean"?

Apparently, _Pollywog_, on 01/05/05 18:59,typed:
> On Sunday 01 May 2005 10:41 pm, H. S. wrote:
>>I am compiling a new kernel and tinkering with various options. If I
>>just compiled a new version and just want to make slight changes in it,
>>do I really need to do "make-kpkg clean" and wait an hour before I get a
>>new one?
> If it takes an hour, your machine is VERY slow.  The 'make config' part can 
> take that long.  Is that the step to which you are referring?  You can copy 
> your old kernel config, for example /boot/config-2.6.10 
> to /usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.11/.config  and just do 'make oldconfig' and 
> when that is done, do 'make menuconfig' and change only what you need 
> changed.  That alone will save you time and tedious work, but you still need 
> to do 'make-kpkg clean' and subsequent steps.  When you do 'make oldconfig' 
> you will only need to answer questions about options that are NEW since your 
> old kernel.
> make-kpkg clean only takes one or two minutes for me, so I think perhaps you 
> did not really mean that but something else.  Sorry if I misunderstood the 
> question.
> 8)

I might not have made it clear, sorry for the confusion. I was refering
to the compile time it takes to build a new version of the kernel (the
step involving: $> fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version=myver --initrd

"make-kpkg oldconfig" and "make-kpkg menuconfig" and "make-kpkg clean"
do not take long. They are fine. It is only the compilaton of a new
kernel after "make-kpkg clean" that takes around 50 or 58 minutes (1.8
GHz PIV with 256 MB of RAM).


Please remove the underscores ( the '_' symbols) from my email address
to obtain the correct one. Apologies, but the fudging is to remove spam.

Reply to: