Distro tools VS universal tools
I am compiling and patching a kernel for my Debian.
I began using the Debian tools (make-kpkg, dpkg,..)
But I experienced some issues.
Therefore I decided to use the classic:
Except the fact that Debian tools makes administration easier by packaging kernel, is there a technical difference between using Debian tools or using "unviersal" tools ?
Debian tools will do things nicely the "debian way" (whatever that happens to mean). With the make-kpkg for example, you not only configure and compile the kernel (including minor revision strings) but you build packages to install - kernel, source, headers. So when you install that kernel via "dpkg -i", the debian package management system knows you installed that version kernel. If you install by hand that's fine, until you attempt to install a package which requires "linux > 2.6.whatever" which your hand-built-and-installed kernel meets but the package manager believes otherwise because it's not really aware that your kernel had been installed.
So except for the nuisance that you must track such installed software yourself and the occasional fight with the package management software, feel free to install whatever you want however you want to.
I share your feeling about the make-kpkg tool.
It is clean.
However, after I patched my vanillia kernel, make-kpkg doesn't want to work anymore, whereas "make && make modules_install" still works.
That's the good thing about maintaining your own system without all the glue to mess you up. You maintain it therefore you know what, where, when and how for the system. Instead of relying on someone else to have the keys to your system.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.|