Messages in this thread |  | | From | "James A. Sutherland" <> | Subject | Re: Installing kernel 2.4 | Date | Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:01:41 +0000 |
| |
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, George Anzinger wrote: > "James A. Sutherland" wrote: > > > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, George Anzinger wrote: > > > But, here the customer did run the configure code (he said he did not > > > change anything). Isn't this where the machine should be diagnosed and > > > the right options chosen? Need a way to say it is a cross build, but > > > that shouldn't be too hard. > > > > Why default to incompatibility?! If the user explicitly says "I really do want > > a kernel which only works on this specific machine as it is now, and I want it > > to break otherwise", fine. Don't make it a default! > > I could go along with this. The user, however, had the default break, > and, to my knowledge, there are no tools to diagnose the current (or any > other) machine anywhere in the kernel. Maybe it is time to do such a > tool with exports that the configure programs could use as defaults. My > thought is that the tool could run independently on the target system > (be it local or otherwise) with the results fed back to configure.
I think a default whereby the kernel built will run on any Linux-capable machine of that architecture would be sensible - so if I grab the 2.4.0t10 tarball and build it now, with no changes, I'll be able to boot the kernel on any x86 machine.
> (Oops, corollary to the rule that "The squeaking wheel gets the grease." > is "S/he who complains most about the squeaking gets to do the > greasing." I better keep quiet :)
I'm still not convinced the wheel IS squeaking - anyone got those benchmarks??
James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |