On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:19:13PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > >THe problem with maintaining your own kernel is keeping up-to-date with > >(1) security fixes > >(2) hardware issues > > Well, in how far is this different from maintaining your own > distribution?
It means I have to be a kernel specialist as well. And test kernels as well. In practice I'll just ship the last kernel that worked for me, and won't ship updates. > > >A slightly simpler route would be building a slightly-modified > >linux-image package (same source, minimal code modifications). > > Sure, your kernel package could be the official kernel image + small > diff. You might perhaps even convince the kernel maintainers to > include this package in their builds - I never checked how hard this > is but I'm really sure that I would have tried very hard to convince > them before I would start my own distribution. You must know I'm > very lazy once it comes to stupid gruntwork. One small change: here is a snippet from the current configuration: CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set # CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL is not set > > >It would still break all automatically-built modules (linux-modules-extra > >(?)), but then all users will need to do is build modules with m-a . > > Is this really the case? Why? http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/linux-modules-extra-2.6 Naturally because Debian won't build modules for our private kernel... -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
