-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 04:25:07PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:45:54PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >>>maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> kernel-package is even no longer a supported way to build linux-2.6 >>> >>>Ah, that's interesting. I don't see any documentation on this >[...] >> I believe replacing "Debian kernels" with "kernels by the kernel-team" >> in the sentence above is more to the point. >> >> And that such adjustment clarifies the controversy lurking here: Manoj >> cares about packaging kernels. Max cares about the kernel-team >> packaging kernels. > >Hm, > >$ cat /usr/share/doc/linux-image-2.6.18-6-686/Buildinfo >This was produced by kernel-package version 10.067. > >Wasn't this package created by the kernel team?
Max, would you care to answer that one? >> It seems this bug has stranded at the wrong spot: Max got away with a >> false[1] statement and Manoj is obviously never going to update >> kernel-package documentation base don it. [...] >Hm, so what should we do? As far as I have heard, there's no real >stable kernel branch any longer, and the kernel developers leave it >mostly to distributors to maintain a stable branch. Debian does provide >kernels, so all is well - unless I want to compile add-on modules. > >Since the kernel image package was created by kernel-package, it seems >logical to me to use the same infrastructure to compile them, but that >doesn't seem to be straightforward. > >I'm still unsure whether one should definitely not use kernel-package >for that purpose, or where the information I am missing can, or should, >be found. Debian provides both prebuilt kernels with headers for building addon modules, and full sources for those same kernels. These are all maintained by the kernel-team. The kernel-team use kernel-package, but only as a backend tool: They do not follow its documented use, and afterwards manipulates the output to fit their own different packaging goals. Debian also provides a generic tool for Linux kernel compilation. This tool in theory works on both upstream sources and Debian packages sources and headers, but in reality, due to the manipulations done by the kernel team, it might not work as documented with the latter. Does the above make sense? Is it somehow untrue, Max? I believe it makes best sense for a generic tool to document generic use, and for customizations to document how they differ from the generic approach. - Jonas - -- Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jones.dk/~jonas/ IT-guide dr. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dr.jones.dk/ +45 40843136 Debian GNU/Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/ GnuPG(1024D/C02440B8): 9A98 C6EB C098 9ED0 3085 ECA9 9FB0 DB32 C024 40B8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHpeAHn7DbMsAkQLgRArEDAJ41wjc2chC1JhGxjXOtPOo+03k+DwCgoBj9 iDSDaZlD/1TQndMkl9xizWk= =pMig -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
