On Thu, 05 May 2005 22:32:55 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:29:08 -0400, H S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>
>>> Exactly! It is actually quite strange that an obvious option
>>> doesn't exist to prevent *real* cleaning so that make utility is
>>> taken advantage of. make-kpkg has been around for quite a
>>> while. Surely the original author(s) thought about this issue. I
>>> wonder if I am actually missing something here.
>>
>> Why does it have to be a make-kpkg option? It is simple enough to
>> do otherwise. I understand the kitchen sink mentality, but I really
>> do not want to read my email using make-kpkg (one emacs is enough).
>>
> But why do it otherway when the debian way of compiling a kernel is
> to use `make-kpkg` ? If your otherwise is to manually compile the
> module I want and copy it to the appropriate folder, then I don't
Umm, that is not my way, no. The idea is to produce a .deb,
and you use make-kpkg to do so.
> agree. That module won't be part of that particular kernel-image
> package then.
Quite right. Not the way to go.
> What would I tell my friends/customers then ? Install this package
> and then copy this module to this particular directory ?
That would be bad, yes.
> Please let us know if there is anyway of achieving it withing
> make-kpkg.
There is a way of building a .deb a secnond time, if you
understand Makefiles, without calling make-kpkg clean. However,
people who do not understand what they are doing can end up in
trouble, so for them it is recommended that they use make-kpkg clean,
just to be safe.
manoj
--
To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
