Re: Possible /etc/kernel.conf?

Mr. Tickle (94ajg2@eng.cam.ac.uk)
Thu, 16 May 1996 10:21:03 +0100 (BST)

In article <19960515123912.3853.qmail@Mail.UTexas.EDU>,
lilo <TaRDiS@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 May 1996, Hartmut Niemann wrote:
>
>> No, a _file_ /etc/kernel.conf is IMO a bad idea. Those who really need to know how a kernel
>> was built usually have more than one kernel to boot, so this information must
>> be stored _in_ the kernel image.
>
>Actually, that's a very sweeping statement. For example, I rarely compile
>kernels for more than one machine on my system, and I suspect there are a
>lot of us in the same boat (there being more Linux users than developers ;).
>When I get a new kernel, I want it compiled with exactly the same
>configuration as the old one, except of course for new options.

Whereas I do compile many different kernels as I maintain a linux network
of 8 machines + server. What I would like is for make config to recognize
an old .config file and tell me about any new options, and hide all the
questions about previously existing options. Then I could simply have a
.config file for each significantly different computer, and answer a *much*
reduced 'make quickconfig' to recompile the kernels. That way I know I can't
make a slip whilst answering make config and miss out some important driver
from the kernel for one computer and/or put an extra driver into the kernel
for another.

Any thoughts on this?

Adrian.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Garside, Email : 94ajg2@eng.cam.ac.uk //\ /\\
Old Court, WWW : http://crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk/ || * \ v / * ||
Clare College, \\____\O/____//
Cambridge, / * /O\ * \
CB2 1TL. \__/ " \__/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The significant owl hoots in the night."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!)