Re: do I really need "make-kpkg clean"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
rrs
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com
Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC
"Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is
research."
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCelHA4Rhi6gTxMLwRAuvdAKCtHcczsGdfo0EtpsfG3WhWtiIWLQCfXzPq
Ss2PA363ZS+AN8wki1+82pc=
=fNPI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: