On Fri, 2005-Nov-04 06:39:46 -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
>So I'm wondering if, perhaps, it might help to consider the following
>variant of the current theme:
>
>* Decompose GENERIC into a set if "functional blocks" of config info.
>
>* Then make GENERIC itself merely a set of "include" directive
At 02:36 AM 11/4/2005, Robert Watson wrote:
In practice, I've found the include mechanism extremely valuable
in keeping a number of variations on a single kernel synchronized.
Don't get me wrong: an "include" mechanism can be useful for many
reasons, not the least of which is that one can cre
Hmm I confess I rather like the idea of being able to "include"
chunks of kernel config to make my own, and well-understand the concerns
that rwatson (for example) raised.
I'm less familiar with the anti-foot-shooting concerns Kris raised.
It seems to me that GENERIC is being used for a coup
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Brett Glass wrote:
The notion of creating directives to reverse those in a file of defaults
(the most amusing one being "nocpu", which sounds as if one is saying
that the system has no CPU) shows how absurd this approach is. Yes, it's
handy to have defaults; however, if on
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 09:42:45PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 07:34 PM 11/3/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn't work in reality, as discussed
> >previously.
>
> It has always worked perfectly in my reality.
That's just wonderful, Brett!
Kris
pgpzNQzosXQ
At 07:34 PM 11/3/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn't work in reality, as discussed
>previously.
It has always worked perfectly in my reality.
Again, the problem is that when one slims down a kernel (which
is usually the reason one uses something other than GENERIC
> > Kris said:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:39:28PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> > My humble opinion, for what it's worth, is that the GENERIC kernel
> > configuration should be very heavily commented and documented and
> > that the DEFAULT file will then be completely unnecessary.
>
> Thanks for
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:39:28PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> My humble opinion, for what it's worth, is that the GENERIC kernel
> configuration should be very heavily commented and documented and
> that the DEFAULT file will then be completely unnecessary.
Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn'
