Sorry about the turnaround time on this, life's been like that lately. On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Hartmut Koptein wrote: > > > I did try kernel-image packages; I found that kernel-patch worked much > > > better. I've rewritten its rules almost from scratch. If you really > > > want to stick with kernel-image, I suppose that's OK, but there's no > > > > I don't like dependencies, and kernel-patch is one extra to build the > > images. The kernel-image packages is from the method the same as for > > i386 and alpha. Without the dependencies we must not play with debhelper, > > kernel-package and other possible buggy packages. > > [Back after switching jobs] > > I have a working powerpc kernel-image solution. I see this thread never > came to a resolution so we better do it now. > > kernel-patch approach allows one to add other generic kernel patch packages > into the build easily. On the other hand, it requires a bunch of > dependencies.
Well, one thing here is a style/attitude issue - adding additional dependencies for the kernel build is not such a bad thing, and it means that there is a central place to fix such problems instead of a host of kernel-image packages. Kernel-package is a complex piece of software with a lot of potential for problems, but I still think it is a better idea to use that. > One thing we do have to coordinate on is what patches are included. Dan's > prep image won't work on a lot of PReP boxes cause it needs some minor > patches. I've got those in my build but not the comprehensive patch > from Ben H. Since I'm working directly out of BitKeeper these days and > I see Ben and Paul checking support in there too, I was thinking about > just generating a patch from that versus 2.2.14. Yeah, I'm working with the bitkeeper right now also. Although when it came down to it I needed to use a straight kernel.org 2.2.15pre10 so that the Universal IDE patch would apply cleanly. We should definitely sit down and figure out what patches we need. > Comments? What can the kernel-patch approach really do that kernel-image > can't? Well, one of the motivations for the kernel-patch packages, if I understand correctly, was the x86 IDE kernel flavor (although I'm greatly confused, as I can not find the IDE patch package any more, so I may be misremembering). This patch now applies to powerpc as well; in fact, I need it to boot my desktop. And, being an occasional kernel hacker, I've also got a few local patches I regularly apply. Thus I would prefer to do kernel packages in a way that easily supports building with alternate sets of installed patches. I think it's more useful, on the whole. Dan /--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/