On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 03:46:20AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> What's to prefer? You get essentially the same behavior unless you start
> with a broken config.
What's going to happen when this interconnected behavior results in a
previously acceptable config becomes broken (by definition) wi
Juan Quintela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> linux 2.4.(x+1) has more drivers/options/whatever that linux-2.4.x. I
> want to be prompted only for the new drivers/options/whatever it
> chooses the old ones from the .config file. Note that my old .config
> file is not a valid configuration because it miss
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> In many cases there is no way to define "upper" or "lower". (X86 and
> SMP) implies RTC!=n is actually a good example. Here's where they fit
> in the tree:
>
> main 'Linux Kernel Configuration System'
> arch 'Pr
John Stoffel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> He's saying that when you find the first invalid assertion, such as
> not having CONFIG_RTC defined, when reading the .config file, you
> should prompt for a fix. Then once the input is taken, continue your
> checks, prompting for each following problem as need
4 matches
Mail list logo
