Follow-up - kernel.src Issue
Paul Howarth
paul at city-fan.org
Fri Mar 4 15:56:01 UTC 2005
David Cary Hart wrote:
> To avoid confusion:
>
> YES. I am FULLY aware that Fedora no longer provides kernel-source.rpm.
> That is NOT what I am looking for.
>
> This question now pertains to kernel-2.6.11-1.1170_FC4.src.rpm. Note, I
> am referring to kernel-2.6.11-1.1170_FC4.SRC.rpm. I had originally
> posted regarding kernel-2.6.11-1.1166_FC4.src.rpm.
>
> Up to now, we have been able to create kernel-source.rpm from src.rpm.
> That is - seemingly - NO LONGER POSSIBLE. %buildsrc and the routines it
> referred to in the 2.6.10 series are no longer included in the spec
> file.
>
> If Fedora now intends to resume distributing kernel-source then this is
> a non-issue. However, that has not been the case with the two 2.6.11
> rawhide releases.
>
> 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.
>
> Can I get an "official" comment - please?
Not an "official" comment, but the method described at:
http://crab-lab.zool.ohiou.edu/kevin/kernel-compilation-tutorial-en/steps.html
uses "make menuconfig" (or your favourite GUI version) and does not
require the creation of a kernel-source package, nor hand-editing of the
config files. This does appear to be the "official" way of building
kernels, and results in an RPM too, which is good, isn't it?
Paul.
More information about the users
mailing list