> Personally, I compile and install kernels by hand (i.e. make > menuconfig; make bzImage; make install) What's the advantage of using > make-kpkg? I use stable/2.2.20 on my servers and testing/2.4 or 2.5 on > development boxes.
I used to make them by hand, too, but what I like about make-kpkg is that if you use it, you get a .deb that you can save off. The .deb includes your kernel and the modules you built, plus when you install it, it takes care of the links in / to /boot and also takes care of LILO configuration, etc. I find that this makes recovery or reinstallation really easy... I save off a .deb for every different kernel I build, so it's easy to fall back if I really screw something up with a new kernel. IMHO, anyway, the move to make-kpkg is worth it unless you're maintaining several machines with the same kernel that aren't all running Debian. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
pgp5nD3VLKg6c.pgp
Description: PGP signature