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

Re: make-kpgp && git-bisect

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:15:36 +0100, Frank Hartmann <soundart@gmx.net>

> linux-source- (2.6-1.gitbisect) unstable; urgency=low
>                           ( ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

> versus 2.6.17, which was not part of cmd line parameters, but seemed
> to be derived from the kernel itself (version.h).

> This experience, was not done with the posted cmdline, but was the
> result of one of my many trials in the 3 hours before posting.

        Yeah, version.h needs match ./debain/changelog; this is a
 sanity check.

> The cmdline from my previous email

> MAKEFLAGS="CC=gcc-3.4 HOSTCC=gcc-3.4" make-kpkg --append-to-version
> 2.6.17 --revision 2.6-1.gitbisect -us -uc --initrd --rootcmd
> fakeroot kernel_image',

> works in fact. I discouvered this 20 minutes after sending out my
> email. The only drawback is, that it created

> linux-image-

> which is a strange looking name.

        ok. the upstream version is 2.6.17. Normally, the package name
 produced would be linux-image-2.6.17. You asked for something to be
 added to the version, and thus the package name: "2.6.17"
 So, it adds to the original linux-image-2.6.17, the string 2.6.17, to
 get: linux-image-

        You could try:  --append-to-version -foo, which will create:

> dpkg -l gives:

> ii linux-image- 2.6-1.gitbisect 
          Linux kernel binary image for version

> I noticed too, that the beginning of a line in debian/changecontrol
> was modified by make-kpkg

        You probably mean debian/changelog

> linux-source- (2.6-1.gitbisect) unstable; urgency=low
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Which is the package name from above.

> I think I can work with the current approach. But I still feel
> slightly confused.

        Hope this clears it up a bit.

"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" Berkeley
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: