newly compiled kernel > 100MB
my-mailfloods at web.de
Wed Jun 29 06:31:44 UTC 2005
Most curious. Looks as if I solved the problem by importing an elder
Nonetheless a great thanks to you all.
I highly appreciated your help.
On Di, 2005-06-28 at 08:10 +0200, S. Donig wrote:
> On Mo, 2005-06-27 at 15:54 -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +0200, S. Donig wrote:
> > > <Snip>
> > >
> > > Are there any indirect dependencies for building a kernel, is e.g. a
> > > libc6-upgrade required for Kernels larger 2.6.10 [the last version I
> > > could built normally]?
> > I don't think so (I used 2.3.5-1ubuntu7 from breezy).
> Me too. So that shouldn't be the cause...
> > Specifying "binary" as a target for make-kpkg gives you 4 .deb packages
> > (kernel-image, kernel-source, kernel-headers and kernel-doc). Maybe that
> > explains the 100 MB.
> No, the 100MB Kernel exists besides the source and other packages.
> Actually I really could leave that away. I just wanted to go for sure.
> Thanks for your help.
> > If you just want to compile and package the image (you already have the
> > source installed, plus docs and headers are included in source), run
> > 'make-kpkg --append-to-version foo kernel_image'.
More information about the ubuntu-users