Hai Robert Wilhelm,
I think we have a communication problem here, so let's at both sides
try to be more explicit and maybe a little more informative:)
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:18:26PM +0100, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
...
> Ok, I think I got it. Debian seems to provide a combined
> kernel-compile-install routine with the help of kernel-package. I
No, it is a three step process.
0) get the kernel source and apply all the necessary patches
1a) configure the kernel
1b) and compile the kernel
1c) and build a deb file from it clearing the source tree as a side effect
2a) use dpkg to install the above build deb file wich is stored in the
parent directory of the source tree
2b) and use lilo to bring the MBR up to date
dpkg is smart enough to propose lilo, so step 2a and 2b feel like one step.
Likewise make-kpkg is smart enough to combine 1b and 1c. But you can do all
the steps by hand if you feel particularly masochistic that is:) So there
is no need to use any debian specific tool, except for the fact that it makes
live *so* much more easier.
> didn't know that, in fact I would rather keep the old way and not
> access the help of all these whisles and bells. Additionally, I have
Be our guest, what ever suits you
> As I previously stated, the image cannot be found in src/../boot/..
If you are using make-kpkg and subsequently dpkg -i ../some-kernel-package
then the kernel image is put in /boot. Most likely you don't have a /src,
i.e. a src dir in the / root dir, so src/../boot doesn't exist. Just have
a look in /boot.
> and I would really like to understand why the current 2.2.17 kernel is
> a exe while my old 2.0.38 kernel is 'simple' binary file?
Both are executable files, or actually compressed executable files.
I know you don't want to talk tools, but... How did you notice that
the two differ? Did you use the "file" command? Or less or...
--
groetjes, carel
