Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Rick wrote:

> 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 to create a script to go looking for outdated kpkg's  to delete, the user has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.

Rick, it is obvious that you have no idea what I am talking about.
Make-kpkg does several things.  If we build a new kernel to ship to users,
we will likely use make-kpkg to do it. The user then downloads and
installs the package using dpkg. They do not need to have the slightest
idea what a make command is, what a zImage is or anything else.

If they want to make a custom kernel, they can use the configurator which
will launch make-kpkg to produce a custom kernel that is installed in
exactly the same manner as a kernel package that they might download from
seul.  Again, they need to have no idea what make is or what a zImage is.

make-kpkg even has a hook to place distribution-specific mods to the main
makefile in a /etc/file.  This allows us to modify the make process to
suit our needs without touching anything in the source tree.  It is a
great tool. look into it.
> 
> 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.

How to you restore the old modules if you remake the same version of linux
and the old ones are written over?  Having a packaged version of the old
kernel is a handy archive as well.


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.