Re: [gentoo-dev] Speaking of new kernels being added to the tree

[Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com>]

On Saturday 04 October 2003 12:56, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Saturday 04 October 2003 02:25 am, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > You're not suggesting anything that provides a tangible benefit, you're
> > just suggesting expanding our tree to do something we already do. That
> > doesn't make sense.
>
> As it is currently done, Portage cannot track the kernel itself, only the
> kernel sources. Also, it leaves the kernel in /usr/src/linux when it isn't
> really needed once installed except perhaps to save configuration (which
> genkernel has stuff for) and object files to speed future compilations
> (which Portage should do if you keep /var/tmp/portage around anyway).
> It makes little sense to compile and install other packages but not compile
> and install Linux itself.

Agreed. (My other post was written and sent to my local server before reading 
yours but took a while to get out)

However, having portage compile and install Linux has several issues. Portage 
would need  to be able to:
1) handle multiple saved configurations automatically.
2) update lilo/grub automatically _with_ backup.
3) extract the source to /usr/src if need be (as already mentioned)
4) handle different configurations of the same kernel version.

Tangible benefits that I can see:
1) ccache can be used in compiling the kernel automatically
2) a lot of disk space can be saved.

A lot of work would need to be done to do this successfully, though; maybe 
something that should be left for portage v3...

Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list