hi ya nathan
bottom line as has been previous stated by others too
- you can do your way .. others can do it their way
regardless of which way is better in our view
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Nathanael Hasbrouck wrote:
> > > $ 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?
take any generic bozo with a engineering degree ...
- 99% of the will knwo about configure/make/make install
not many will be famililar with "fakeroot" or debian specific commands
or the other rh specific or gentoo specific commands
- why is it all different ?? because their way is "better"
> 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
my point is, as you also point out in your example, your version didnt
use "fakeroot" as was the original poster 2 posts back
> dpkg automatically updates grub (via the update-grub script),
the generic kernel's "make install" i think does that for you too ...
- but i don't use that make option
> 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 outdated kernel versions with a simple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
point 4 u ...
old fashion way would be rm -rf /lib/modules/<kernel> and manual editing
of grub/lilo files
but the "update-grub" can be ported to any linux distro too
> 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,
there is only "make" in terms of commands ... there is nothing else
vs the gazillion distro dependent commands and switches for each command
> (Please note that I respect your opinion, I just want to know your
> rational. If there's a better way to do anything, I want to know. :))
ditto ... my point(s) is simple
a. there is more than one way to do the same thing
and one way is NOT better than another
just depends on the user that has to type that command ...
take out the stop watch and see how long it takes them
b. claiming that xx distro does this and that and the other distro
cannot do something when in fact it can ( maybe better or maybe worst )
is NOT gonna sell that feature of that distro
- does it need to be done the same way ??? probably not
bottom line is the individual users experiences in the past and
willingness ( or see the light ) to learn new things or do it the old
fashion way that works for their envirnment of 10 or 1000 machines
- still is a job for one person
- following the bandwagon because others are doing is a
usually a sure fire way to get burnt big time
because you didnt have your own specs/requirements/abilities
drive that decision
( fedora being the best example of a major [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
c ya
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
