i love debian. seriously, apt is a work of genius and the entire system is exactly how i want it - unlike SuSE or RedHat. since i do a fair bit of developing and since i always want to have at least one machine that's cutting edge, i do a whole lot of kernel compiles.
in the past, i have always used .debs unless a software was too old or not available, in which case i beat the tarball around and installed into /usr/local. by now, i do it the "debian way," and use dpkg-buildpackage to create the .deb, which i then install. i haven't done so on kernels yet, even though i know about make-kpkg anyway, my question is: while i am currently running a system that's .deb only, the kernel is still compiled and installed the standard way, me taking care of /boot and /etc/lilo.conf. what advantages are in make-kpkg'ing as opposed to the regular way? martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "for art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication." -- friedrich nietzsche