Re: A little pre-2.0 input

Matthias Urlichs (
25 May 1996 18:37:58 +0200

In, article <19960514022004.7211.qmail@Mail.UTexas.EDU>,
lilo <> writes:
> > 1) Configuration still seems a tiny bit illogical. For example,
> > it asks certain things (like CONFIG_ETHERNET) in weird places.
> > Also, maybe the (NEW) thing shouldn't appear when .config doesn't
> > already exist?
> NO!!!! Many of us copy our .config from the previous kernel tree into
> arch/<whatever/defconfig of the new kernel tree, as a last step before
> running `make mrproper' and compiling the new kernel.

The two-tiered defconfig / .config scheme was specifically implemented so
that your local patches don't make the kernel you just configured

> Don't assume that just because there is no .config, there is no old
> configuration.

On the contrary. The reasonable way to supply old config to a new kernel is
to copy .config from old to new, and then run "make oldconfig". I don't
know why you would want to replace defconfig.

I also don't know why you would want to run "make mrproper" before
compiling a new kernel. "make clean" should be sufficient. (In theory,
"touch config.h" should be sufficient.) If not, that's a bug in the

It's too bad, by the way, that "make -t" doesn't work right -- too many
targets are not marked as phony.

"So, do you live around here often?"
		-- Steve Wright
Matthias Urlichs