Messages in this thread |  | | From | lilo <> | Date | Thu, 16 May 1996 23:46:35 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: Possible /etc/kernel.conf? |
| |
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Mr. Tickle wrote:
> 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.
Definitely a different problem. Right now the simple way to do that is to copy the old source's .config file to the new source's arch/<blah>/defconfig and do a `make mrproper'. There might be some neater way to set this up as well, though. Not sure.
lilo
|  |