On Sunday 14 November 2004 0003, somebody named Alvin Oga inscribed this message: > > Too many extra hoops? > > > > $ fakeroot make-kpkg -rev `hostname`.1 kernel_image > > $ sudo dpkg -i ../kernel-image....deb > > update lilo/grub [if needed] > > assuming that the /usr/src/linux/.config is configured properly > > most non-debianites will probably do: > make .. make bzlilo .. make modules ... blah .. > > tar zcvf /usr/src/linux-2.4.latest.bin.tgz \ > /usr/src/linux-2.4.latest\ > /lib/moudles/linux-2.4.latest\ > /etc/lilo.conf\ > /boot/grub/menu.list > > to install .. > same as all distro .. just install it > > in my book, there is no significant advantage to make-kpkg + dpkg
Out of curiosity - why? If I understand correctly, the kernel-building procedure you outlined is about five steps or so, while it takes me two (well, three actually): # make-kpkg clean && make-kpkg kernel-image # dpkg -i ../kernel-image[version].deb dpkg automatically updates grub (via the update-grub script), and I can manage multiple kernel versions fairly easily in synaptic, or get rid of outdated kernel versions with a simple # dpkg -r kernel-image[version].deb && update-grub or something like. Now, granted, I started on debian and this is the only way I've ever built/installed kernels, but I think only having to type two or three commands is an advantage over five, especially since I don't have to do that long tar step. I don't compile kernels frequently enough to remember that in between, and not having to do it probably saves me a couple minutes. So, out of curiosity, is there an advantage to *not* using make-kpkg & dpkg? (Please note that I respect your oppinion, I just want to know your rational. If there's a better way to do anything, I want to know. :)) NRH -- It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years. - Tom Lehrer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
