On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 06:11:30PM +0100, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
> Carel Fellinger wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thats a nice and short explaination - thank you very much! I guess 2a
> includes make modules_install and mv's the system.map to the
> appropiate place?
Yes, it does.
> As far as I'm concerned most distributions and README's recommend to
> create a linux/ dir as a sub of src/ and I did so.
I find it easier to just do it in my (not root's) home directory. Easy
to play with, easy to clean up.
> /usr/src/linux/kernel-source-2.2.17/arch/i386/boot
> - after x-tar'ing the kernet-sourcexx.tar.gz. Usually you find a
> kernel image file in the above mentioned ..arch/i386/boot (not the
> /boot!) and exactly there is none.
> The impression I get now is - after reading your explaination - step
> 2a/b would not work without step b/c (dpkg -i ../some-kernel-package
> needs a *.deb file) which I would rather discribe as masochistic
> because I have to learn another new kernel-build process which relies
> only on Debian and cannot be used on other distributions. Likewise, my
> previous kernel-build process can be put into /dev/null because no
> one knows what exactly happens using dpkg and make-kpkg and is not
> able to tell where to find my kernel image file! Now that not what I
> would expect which I would discribe as the "linux spirit". After some
> years we all end up with distribution linux flavours with very less in
> common an a CEO in Redmond laughing at us.
> I can't believe it!
Actually, it's pretty simple to use make-kpkg. It is really just a
wrapper for the usual build commands, so you use 'make (menu|x)?config'
just like usual to play with your options. Keeping the kernel as a .deb
makes sense -- it makes it easy to add, remove, and upgrade. (I guess
you could do the 'make bzlilo' target for a similar effect, but I'm
usually too paranoid to do that.
> > > 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?
What's an 'exe'?
--
CueCat decoder .signature by Larry Wall:
#!/usr/bin/perl -n
printf "Serial: %s Type: %s Code: %s\n", map { tr/a-zA-Z0-9+-/ -_/; $_ = unpack
'u', chr(32 + length()*3/4) . $_; s/\0+$//; $_ ^= "C" x length; } /\.([^.]+)/g;
