lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: modutils-970116
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Trevor Johnson wrote:

> Philip Blundell wrote:
>
> > True, but then they lose procps and so on anyway, so we probably don't
> > need to worry too much about lsmod not working.
>
> I haven't tried kmem-ps under Linux 2.1. Are you saying it's broken now,
> or were you just not aware of it?

I do know of it, but I don't use it. I've no idea whether it works under
2.1. But I think that anybody who is aware of why they would need kmem-ps
is probably able to cope without lsmod as well.

> > I'd be in favour of having things like /proc, INET, SysV IPC and so on
> > relegated to a seperate category in the kernel configuration, along the
> > lines of the 'Experimental' option we have now, so that people who don't
> > really know what they're doing don't get a chance to turn them off.
>
> There are already help files that start out, "unless you really know what
> you are doing, you should say Y here" and go on to explain why. Hopefully
> most people who have the initiative to compile their own kernel will have
> enough to press "?" or "h" when configuring it.

That's true, and they're harmless enough in that sense, but they clutter
up the main configuration pages to no real purpose (because probably 99%
of users don't ever touch them).

P.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.024 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site