On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:52:19PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 09:10:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote: > > > > > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname) > > > This is arch-specific headers package containing all the common > > > headers/configs/Makefiles, etc. > > > > In the three level archs, this one is subarch specific. > > > > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(flavour) > > > This is flavour-specific headers package, containing the > > > flavour-specific headers/configs/Makefiles, etc. This should > > > depend on the arch-specific kernel-headers package above, and > > > setup the symbolic links to the dirs in it, so that the > > > /usr/src/kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(flavour) > > > directory contains the complete tree, needed for building of > > > out-of-tree modules. > > > > and this one is exactly the powerpc kernel-build. The only difference is the > > different naming of the package. I have considered renaming k-b to k-h on > > powerpc, but since i have a powerpc subarch and a powerpc flavour inside > > this > > subarch, there is a name clash that stopped me from doing this renaming, and > > which could also involve some confusion, so better to be avoided. > > > > Alternatively, one could consider : > > > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(subarch) > > > > and > > > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(subarch)-$(flavour) > > > > where subarch could be empty in the case of the arches who are only two > > levels. > > I have a couple of questions regarding kernel-headers. The 2.6 packages for > m68k do not build kernel-headers yet, but they will once I upload 2.6.11. > > Can I build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 as an m68k.deb or does that conflict > with other arches?
Well, the powerpc packages used to build this. > Do I need a separate kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k package? m68k is doing > fine without any 2.6 kernel headers so far, the buildds use a generic k-h > package. what need do the buildds have of a kernel-header package ? That is why i believe we should rename this stuff to kernel-build. The one and only aim of this package is to build third party modules for official kernels, since glibc uses their own header packages. > I don't think we need subarch kernel-headers, so I silently skip your third > level. Well, it is needed when a subarch has a subarch-specific patch which patches the headers in an incompatible way to other subarches of the same arch. > When I built kernel-headers-2.6.11-1, I got a 5MB package, which I find > rather big. It includes include/asm-* for all 11 subarches or maybe more, do > I really need to include all them in m68k package or can I remove everything > but m68k? Can this be an option in kernel-package? Or maybe is it already? I have the same on powerpc, and it is provided by kernel-package. It is probably overkill, and part of the kernel-package post-sarge rewrite ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
