>> 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 advocateTea, 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/