Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 May 1999 08:52:14 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Mike A. Harris" <> | Subject | Re: Suggestion for modules.. |
| |
On Mon, 17 May 1999, James Michael Keller wrote:
>> What happens then when the kernel that you are compiling is not >> going to be run on the machine it is compiled on? Then you end >> up with a machine that just compiled a new kernel and won't work >> right next time you reboot. > > An excellent point. Perhaps a config option?
No, I doubt that Linus would ever accept something non-essential into the kernel that can be correctly done from userland utilities. The fact that no userland utility may exist to do such a thing is not grounds for putting something in the kernel.
It has been my experience in reading postings and threads on l-k that this is the way Linus works, and it is a good thing IMHO.
>> What is needed is better userland configuration tools, not a >> modified kernel build system that mucks with userland config >> files. Try using linuxconf, etc... If your module options are >> set in conf.modules, and you recompile a kernel, even of a newer >> version, rarely if ever do the module parameters change. > >Perhaps a new module for linuxconf. A user might be able to use said new >module in the place of the make menuconfig ( or xconfig, etc ). Also - the >possibility to do remote recompiles would then exist ( via linuxconf's remote >usages.)
Perhaps. There are other projects on the go right now to make a GNOME and KDE frontend to compilation. You might want to investigate that.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate GNU advocate Computer Consultant Open Source advocate
Tea, Earl Grey, Hot...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |