Re: do I really need "make-kpkg clean"?
Apparently, _Manoj Srivastava_, on 05/04/2005 03:21 PM,typed:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:18:39 -0400, H S <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.
PS: I apologize if I seem to be going about this issue in a round about
(Remove all underscores,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.)