On 8 Apr 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> include <hallo.h>
> * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, Apr 08 2006, 09:14:14AM]:
>> On 6 Apr 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>>
>>>> include <hallo.h>
>>> * Sven Luther [Thu, Apr 06 2006, 08:09:46AM]:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:12:08PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, directly using make-kpkg as was the recomended way until
>>>>>> now is no more supported ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommended by whom? :-) I did not explore the issue in detail,
>>>>> but we
>>>>
>>>> By Manoj :), as well as dh_make -k too.
>>>
>>> make-kpkg or m-a, that does not matter, they basically use the
>>> same command line interface introduced by Manoj and slightly
>>> refined.
>>
>> What was the slight refinement?
>
> Let's see... KPKG_DEST_DIR was the first one, we have discussed that
> years ago and it was accepted well AFAICS.
Right. make-kpkg does pass KPKG_DEST_DIR to the modules.
> And there are additional targets that m-a-infected rules file
> provide, used to predict the file location and debug the build
> environment.
I am not sure I understand. Predict which file location?
> OTOH some things are not implemented, and nobody has asked for them:
> KPKG_EXTRAV_ARG, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL, ROOT_CMD, UNSIGN_CHANGELOG,
> UNSIGN_SOURCE, APPEND_TO_VERSION, INT_SUBARCH.
> The last thing is interesting - I don't exactly know how to deal
> with crosscompilation. Maybe you have a hint how to reliably
> establish the the correct environment to build modules consistent
> with what the user wants to do.
I think some people have used the current make-kpkg setup to
cross compile kernels, but I have personally never done that (all I
have is i386 machines).
manoj
--
Gary Hart: living proof that you *can* screw your brains out.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
