-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:29:08 -0400, H S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> Exactly! It is actually quite strange that an obvious option doesn't >> exist to prevent *real* cleaning so that make utility is taken >> advantage of. make-kpkg has been around for quite a while. Surely >> the original author(s) thought about this issue. I wonder if I am >> actually missing something here. > > Why does it have to be a make-kpkg option? It is simple enough > to do otherwise. I understand the kitchen sink mentality, but I > really do not want to read my email using make-kpkg (one emacs is > enough). > > manoj But why do it otherway when the debian way of compiling a kernel is to use `make-kpkg` ? If your otherwise is to manually compile the module I want and copy it to the appropriate folder, then I don't agree. That module won't be part of that particular kernel-image package then. What would I tell my friends/customers then ? Install this package and then copy this module to this particular directory ? Please let us know if there is anyway of achieving it withing make-kpkg. rrs - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC "Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research." "Necessity is the mother of invention." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCelHA4Rhi6gTxMLwRAuvdAKCtHcczsGdfo0EtpsfG3WhWtiIWLQCfXzPq Ss2PA363ZS+AN8wki1+82pc= =fNPI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
