Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced

[Kevin Forge <forgeltd@pop.netaddress.usa.net>]

George Bonser wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Rick Jones wrote:
> 
> > How does this differ from just using "make zlilo ; make modules ; make
> > modules_install" ?  Other than being longer?  I've never used it since I
> > thought it was for building kernel packages, so what is the bennefit
> > over the simple make commands?
> 
> It differs because you issue only one command that does all of the above
> and creates the kernel as a package that is installed by dpkg.  The
> install scripts that are run when you install it put eveything where it
> belongs and reruns lilo for you.  It reduces the chance of a newbie making
> a mistake.
>
 Just be careful not to Achieve what OSS did with the sound driver. 
Ie.. They
modularized it so It can be all binary and then be confided from 
'/etc/conf.modules' ... And now one of the most popular sound chips
doesn't 
work properly ( opti82c929 to 931 )
More importantly ... I would like each new Kernel install to save the
files 
required by the old one somewhere and have Lilo boot whichever one you
select
from the Lilo MENU ( not typed in as it is now )

>
> George Bonser
> If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
> http://www.debian.org
> Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

-- 
: "Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
: backbone, bounced from satellite, Nothing but net."
: 	remove BAD.SPAM or your replies will go astray.
: "OpenScape 5.0 ; The Browser of the future" : http://www.openscape.com