Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced

[Rick <rickya@siservices.net>]

On 04-Feb-98 George Bonser wrote:
-> In my opinion, yes. Because the same script could be used to install an 
-> updated kernel image file that we might want to ship to users if you give
-> it a different option.

Wouldn't dpkg handle this with or without make-kpkg?

-> WIth one option it would install a given kernel image with another option
-> it would make and install one.  Besides, if you look at make-kpkg, it is
-> pretty powerful.  Sure, we could write a replacement that does everything
-> that it does but we do not have to. There is a perfectly workable, tested,
-> known good program already in existance.  Why reinvent another wheel.
-> Also, if it lacks a feature we need, it is far better for the entire linux
-> community to improve an existing tool than to further fragment linux by
-> creating yet another that for the most part, duplicates one already in
-> existance.

This is just adding overhead.  This make-kpkg, used as you are suggesting, is
reinventing the wheel, and adding overhead to it.  On top of this we would have
to create a script to go looking for outdated kpkg's  to delete, the user has
to be asked about it, he doesn't know.  Before long he's using up many MB's of
his hard disk for these kpkg's.

In my opinion we should use it as a model to make sure the right thing is done,
without adding the overhead of creating a deb pkg and installing it.  Although
I still feel a 2-4 line script could do the same thing without the added
overhead.

And a simple addition to lilo can reboot an old kernel.  The current "make
zlilo" already renames the old kernel when it's replaced.  We would only have
to add it to the lilo.conf file as a backup entry.

---
Rick Jones
rickya@siservices.net
You don't have to think too hard when you talk to teachers.
		-- J. D. Salinger