Robert Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Colin Percival wrote:
>> I find this argument hard to accept. The vast majority of FreeBSD
>> users will never need the NFS_ROOT option, and many systems do not
>> even have the hardware for serial or parallel ports, yet those are
>> supported in the GENE
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Miguel wrote this message on Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 14:09 -0600:
I dont understand exactly why do you have to recompile, unless a new
future is needed, like SMP, isnt it?, what harm is doing those extra megs?
In the general case, no, you do not need to recompile..
Miguel wrote this message on Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 14:09 -0600:
> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> >GENERIC is already so large, that if you want/need a smaller kernel,
> >you're going to rebuild anyways,
> >
> >Since I care about that extra 2megs, I recompiled my own kernel,
> And the real problem of
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Colin Percival wrote:
Tom Grove wrote:
Richard Bejtlich wrote:
After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk
quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel
changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using
freebsd-up
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
GENERIC is already so large, that if you want/need a smaller kernel,
you're going to rebuild anyways,
Since I care about that extra 2megs, I recompiled my own kernel,
And the real problem of a big kernel is
I dont understand exactly why do you have to recompile
Colin Percival wrote this message on Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:22 -0800:
> In deciding what options should go into the GENERIC kernel, I think the
> question we should be asking is not "how many people use this?", but
> instead "would adding this option inconvenience more people than it would
> help?
Colin Percival wrote:
Tom Grove wrote:
Richard Bejtlich wrote:
After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk
quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel
changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using
freebsd-update for binary ke
Tom Grove wrote:
> Richard Bejtlich wrote:
>> After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk
>> quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel
>> changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using
>> freebsd-update for binary kernel updates.
>>
Richard Bejtlich wrote:
Hello all,
I have become a fan of Colin Percival's freebsd-update, which allows
binary updates of the GENERIC kernel and unmodified userland.
Binary kernel updates are not possible if I modify my kernel to
include support for IPSec or NAT, e.g.
devicecr
At 03:10 PM 04/11/2005, Richard Bejtlich wrote:
devicecrypto
options FAST_IPSEC
options IPFIREWALL
options IPDIVERT
Can anyone shed light on why those three features are not available
in GENERIC?
It might be because FAST_IPSEC implies no IPV6 ?
Hello all,
I have become a fan of Colin Percival's freebsd-update, which allows
binary updates of the GENERIC kernel and unmodified userland.
Binary kernel updates are not possible if I modify my kernel to
include support for IPSec or NAT, e.g.
devicecrypto
options FAST_I
11 matches
Mail list logo
