On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Brett Glass wrote:
The notion of creating directives to reverse those in a file of defaults
(the most amusing one being nocpu, which sounds as if one is saying
that the system has no CPU) shows how absurd this approach is. Yes, it's
handy to have defaults; however, if one
Hmm I confess I rather like the idea of being able to include
chunks of kernel config to make my own, and well-understand the concerns
that rwatson (for example) raised.
I'm less familiar with the anti-foot-shooting concerns Kris raised.
It seems to me that GENERIC is being used for a
At 02:36 AM 11/4/2005, Robert Watson wrote:
In practice, I've found the include mechanism extremely valuable
in keeping a number of variations on a single kernel synchronized.
Don't get me wrong: an include mechanism can be useful for many
reasons, not the least of which is that one can
On Fri, 2005-Nov-04 06:39:46 -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
So I'm wondering if, perhaps, it might help to consider the following
variant of the current theme:
* Decompose GENERIC into a set if functional blocks of config info.
* Then make GENERIC itself merely a set of include directives,
At 07:34 PM 11/3/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn't work in reality, as discussed
previously.
It has always worked perfectly in my reality.
Again, the problem is that when one slims down a kernel (which
is usually the reason one uses something other than
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 09:42:45PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 07:34 PM 11/3/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn't work in reality, as discussed
previously.
It has always worked perfectly in my reality.
That's just wonderful, Brett!
Kris
pgpzNQzosXQSm.pgp
