On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 05:45:34PM +0200, MaD dUCK wrote: > 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?
One advantage of using make-kpkg which I have used many times is that if you want to compile a kernel or modules on a fast computer to install on a slower one all you need to do is copy the .deb to the slower computer and install it, whereas you can't do something like 'make modules_install' except on the computer where you are compiling. If you have ever tried compiling on a 386, you will see the advantage of doing this. Bob