On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:45:20 -0500 (EST) Stephen Powell <zlinux...@wowway.com> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:46:09 -0500 (EST), Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> I have been trying to get to grips with compiling a custom > >> kernel. I have been shying away for too long. > >> > >> I am following Stephen's marvellous work, and had got this far: > >> > >> http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/Kernel.htm#Unpack > > > > This appears to be really old. > > The above document was last revised on August 4, 2012. I wouldn't > classify that as "really old". Perhaps you assumed that it is old > because I recommend using kernel-package, rather than "make deb-pkg" > or some other newer method. kernel-package has been around a while, > yes. But I recommend it for what I consider to be good reasons, > which are explained over time in the document. You are, of course, > entitled to disagree with my opinion. But it's not old. I make an > effort to keep it up to date, and suggestions are welcome.
I don't have time to read the current howto now, but I'll read it ASAP. It describes the way I build Debian and Ubuntu kernels since years, but while my scripts are a little bit outdated, Stephen updated his howto. However, even my outdated scripts still do work. I used a script version from Wheezy to build a kernel for my current Ubuntu ... $ uname -v #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Fri Nov 2 21:36:37 CET 2012 ... so 9 days ago this old style to build a kernel still worked. It works for Debian and Ubuntu since years. I added "--rootcmd fakeroot", but run the script as root ;) and for sure my script does install packages that aren't needed to build a kernel. But all in all nothing important changed in the last years. However, from time to time there were some issues that could be fixed by reading the error messages and since custom build kernels usually aren't build to fit all needs, we even could abandon some things, if compiling those would cause trouble. I remember one issue that occurred very often, in /lib/modules/KERNEL_VERSION the /build and /source links were missing or bad. At least for Ubuntu this still is an issue, right now I noticed "build -> /usr/src/linux-3.6.5-rt14" but correct would be linked against "linux-headers-3.6.5-rt14". IIRC this was an issue for my latest Debian installs too. +1 for old school. I'm pro progress, but IMO it isn't alway progress to use new methods, to do old things. Most of the times new methods tend to fail, e.g. systemd [1] makes many *nix users to switch from Linux to another *nix. Basic workflow only should change, if it's really useful. We aren't building kernels very often, so we should be able to relay on a method that always can be used, without reading tons of fine manuals. I'm cleaning my tableware, but I don't change the old dishes with new once, new tableware might look nicer, but it don't add any new features, it only needs resources to get new tableware and it's risky, since it might no be as dishwasher-proof as the tableware I already own. I hope we won't lose manifoldness for Linux :(. Regards, Ralf PS: Another example: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-helpers.en.html I can't see anything that's obsolete. [1] Arch Linux did ban peole from the users mailing list that argued against systemd and meanwhile upstream makes systemd a dependency for even DEs. I'm writing to this list and get replies off-list, because some people aren't allowed to write to this list anymore. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121111111629.722583ab@qrc
