>>>>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:43:31 +0000 (GMT), Martin Orr >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was runoured to have said:
[snip snip] > Personally, I compile and install kernels by hand (i.e. make > menuconfig; make bzImage; make install) What's the advantage of using > make-kpkg? I use stable/2.2.20 on my servers and testing/2.4 or 2.5 on > development boxes. I used to do the same. Well, for one, make-kpkg is less error-prone (who has never forgotten to run lilo after installing a new image? :) It will even make a backup lilo entry for the previous kernel. But the biggest plus for me is that ``make-kpkg modules_image'' will build debs for _all_ kernel modules that have been installed from *-source packages (e.g. alsa, lm-sensors). That makes kernel upgrades a simple matter of make oldconfig; make-kpkg clean && make --revision=custom.1.0 kernel_image && make-kpkg modules_image && dpkg -i ../..... Oh, and it can apply patches too (although not port them to newer kernel versions ;) > -- > Martin Orr "Cogitavi ergo fui." > Linux Administrator, > Methodist College Belfast > The opinions expressed in this e-mail are mine personally, and should not > be interpreted as representing those of the College or the CCC unless > explicitly stated otherwise. Rgds, /-sb -- Stelios Bounanos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /*\ ..............7500000 years later: \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign The Ultimate Answer is 42. X No HTML in mail or news! (next mail will give the Question) / \
