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

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

On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:18:39 -0400, H S <greatexcalibur@yahoo.com> said: 

> Apparently, _Tim Kelley_, on 04/05/05 07:29,typed:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:05:01AM +0300, Andres J?rv wrote:
>>> I'm missing the point of make-kpkg. It doesn't make any other
>>> difference than make things more complicated IMHO. I just use the
>>> old fashion way of cp and make modules_install ;)
>> ? It doesn't take any longer, and you get version tracking and a
>> nice deb.  Seems like a no brainer to me. It's much more convenient
>> than cp and editing your bootloader files ...

> So how do you tell make-kpkg to not clean everything for a
> recompilation of a same version kernel with only a tiny change in
> the config file?

	Are you sure that tine change shall be propagated to the
 kernel that shall be built?

> Reberto has mentioned 'do_clean := NO' method. Have you ever used
> it? If not, what you do you use to avoid unnecessary recompilations
> during tweaking of the config file?

	No, that won't do it. The do_clean := NO ensures that the tree
 is not cleaned _after_ the .deb is built.

No directory.
Manoj Srivastava     <srivasta@acm.org>    <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: