Chris Hessmann, 2002-Jan-29 00:22 +0100: > Hello Jeff, > > > > - From a fresh source extraction: > > 1. make xconfig|menuconfig > > 2. make-kpkg clean > > 3. Adjust "Extraversion" in Makefile, e.g. -1 to make resultant > > kernel "2.4.17-1" > > 4. make-kpkg kernel_image > > oh, oh. > Why do I have to compile and install a kernel for debian in such a > special way? > > I'm running a 2.2r5 unstable, updated daily, and compiled my own > 2.4.17-kernel today in the "old way" (d/l from kernel.org in > /usr/src/linux/, make xconfig, make dep && make bzImage, make modules > && make modules_install, cp bzImage /boot/, ln -s /vmlinuz, edit > /etc/lilo.conf, lilo, reboot). > > Since now, everything is working fine and exactly as I expected it (to > be honest, better than I expected it, because it's the first time a > self-compiled kernel worked without problems ;) ). > > Did I made something wrong? What's the problem about "working around" > the debian package-management? Do I have to expect problems with > aptitude from now on? > > > -- > cu Hessi
That's one of the things I love about Linux in general...choices. There are always several ways to do anything you want to do. You do not have to compile and install kernels for debian this way. I was responding to a question on using "kernel-package", which is a Debian package for making kernels and modules. I like using kernel-package and it's worked perfectly for me (as long as my config is right). I have friends who compile using the method you describe and with the same success you've had. There are no problems here, only the luxury of having choices as to how to accomplish the same thing. And, as long as you config's are solid, you shouldn't expect any problems. Have fun...jc PS> compiling your own kernel is a blast, isn't it?! :-) -- Jeff Coppock Systems Engineer Diggin' Debian Admin and User
