[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Installing kernel 2.4
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??

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.076 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site