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

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

Hash: SHA1

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:29:08 -0400, H S <greatexcalibur@yahoo.com> said:
>> Exactly! It is actually quite strange that an obvious option doesn't
>> exist to prevent *real* cleaning so that make utility is taken
>> advantage of. make-kpkg has been around for quite a while. Surely
>> the original author(s) thought about this issue. I wonder if I am
>> actually missing something here.
> Why does it have to be a make-kpkg option? It is simple enough
>  to do otherwise. I understand the kitchen sink mentality, but I
>  really do not want to read my email using make-kpkg (one emacs is
>  enough).
> manoj

But why do it otherway when the debian way of compiling a kernel is to use
`make-kpkg` ? 
If your otherwise is to manually compile the module I want and copy it to
the appropriate folder, then I don't agree. That module won't be part of
that particular kernel-image package then.

What would I tell my friends/customers then ? Install this package and then
copy this module to this particular directory ?

Please let us know if there is anyway of achieving it withing make-kpkg.

- -- 
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com
Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC
"Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: