On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 16:54 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:47:58 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote:
*snip*
> > Correct me if I am wrong but this new format allows for creating a
> > custom FC kernel only by text editing the config files which (IMO) is a
> > VERY bad idea. Without "make config" it is possible to select
> > conflicting options or to omit dependent options.
You are, fortunately, wrong on this point. I created a custom kernel
(RPM no less) just last night after using 'make gconfig' to choose the
options. Here's a quick HOWTO for building and customizing a kernel RPM:
rpm -ivh kernel.src.rpm
rpmbuild -bp kernel-2.6.spec
cd $RPM_BUILD_DIR/kernel-2.6.x/linux-2.6.x
cp $RPM_SOURCE_DIR/kernel-2.6.x-$arch.config .config
make {x,g,menu,}config
cp .config $RPM_SOURCE_DIR/kernel-2.6.x-$arch.config
cd $RPM_SPEC_DIR/
rpmbuild -bb --target=$arch kernel-2.6.spec
If you don't want to build an RPM, it's easier.
> Why don't you use "make config"?
>
> > Can I get an "official" comment - please?
>
> I think your problem is that you simply refuse to use the existing kernel
> src.rpm package. And you don't explain what doesn't work for you or what
> makes you think you could not use "make config" any longer.
To be fair, it is (mildly) more difficult to get the kernel source
installed in a form where one can run "make config". Not much more, but
the above steps are more difficult than:
"rpm -Uvh kernel-source.rpm; cd /usr/src/linux-2.6;make config"
--
Shahms E. King <shahms@xxxxxxxxxx>
Multnomah ESD
Public Key:
http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/~sking/shahms.asc
Fingerprint:
1612 054B CE92 8770 F1EA AB1B FEAB 3636 45B2 D75B
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
