On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:13:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:yes.
We will need some additional logic in the makefile. You have to list
all the possible kernel image names in build/config/arch/linux-powerpc
and adjust the makefile logic in build/make/arch/linux-powerpc
That would be the d-i makefiles ?
yes, it build-depends on kernel-image-??
Sven, have a look at how Herbert Xu creates kernel udebs withOk, i will see if i can do that, altough the real problem is to build more than just the vmlinux and vmlinux.coff images. I guess we could get the images directly out of the arch/ppc/boot/images :
kernel-image-2.4.20-1-i386-udeb. He has an additional source package
for the udebs, which depens on the kernel-image. IMHO this is the best
way to package kernel udebs. You don't need an extra kernel build for the
udebs if you do it that way (even if kernel udebs change but the kernel stays the same).
Ok, i will have a look. The real problem for ppc though is that there are various subarches, which build different kind of images including the subarch specific bootloaders. I don't think this problem exists on i386.
I suppose the udeb-source package gets the kernel-image package, and extracts the needed kernel image or something from it to build the udeb ?
I'm not sure about the subarchs, but I think to best way for the moment is what Thorsten suggested, to put them together into one udeb and handling all the subarches in the d-i makefile. One other possibility that comes into my mind, is to have one udeb for every subarch. But subarches need special handling in the makefile anyway, so this is probably overkill.
Yes, kernel maintainers probably know better. So in any case there needs to be tight cooperation between debain-boot and the maintainers.I'm not sure, but I think it could be better if these kernel udeb source packages would be maintained by debian-boot and not the individual kernel maintainers.
Mmm, i would have to look at the source udeb in question before i can give my opinion on this.
Like that we would have better control over the udebs and don't have to bother
the kernel maintainers every time the content of some udeb changes. We could
also provide more unified udebs across all architectures. But I don't want to stand
on the feets of the kernel maintainers. If they prefer to do this job, do it.
The problem is that the kernel maintainer for a given arch may have a
better knowledge of what modules build or fail to build on said arch or
other such problems, does he not ? Not really speaking about me, since i
don't own powermac hardware, and have the impression that most powermac
people use the benh kernels instead anyway.
gaudenz
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
