Apparently, _Manoj Srivastava_, on 05/04/2005 03:21 PM,typed:
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?
I don't understant your point. If I make a change in my config file, whether I do *real* cleaning before compiling or not shouldn't matter to the issue of whether I should have a change in my kernel. However, if I do not do *real* cleaning, then the make utility should take care of what to change in the compilation and leave the rest alone thus saving time.
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.
Okay. But does that mean if I do not have that option, then the tree is cleaned?
I tried to recompile my kernel without "make-kpkg clean" and it took around only 1.5 minutes (due to a minor change in the config file). Had cleaning been done after the previous deb was created(since I do have that option), surely it should have taken much longer than that.
->HSPS: I apologize if I seem to be going about this issue in a round about way :)
--(Remove all underscores,if any, from my email address to get the correct one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.)