On Fri, 6 May 2005 18:11:27 +0200, maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 09:15:29 +1000, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> Well, on IRC I was informed that kernel-package sucked, that the
>> kernel team spent lots of times working around bugs and missing
>> functionality in kernel-package. If this is the case, I consider
>> it a pity.
> the strings out of kernel-package are sometimes quite offensive.
Ah. Drive by criticism.
> also the ouput isn't up to the nice Kbuild of the 2.6, which will be
> the common case (afair you also support older non maintained trees).
The output from kernel-package is mostly the output from the
underlying kernel build system, so I am intrigued by this comment.
snipp>
>> For starters, it would be nice if the configs used in official
>> kernels were available in the configs directory of
>> kernel-package,so that user of stand alone kernels could use those
>> as a guide.
> that doesn't make that match sense because of the modular debian
> patchw. make defconfig comes to mind.
Parse error. A use gets kernels from kernel.org, does not have
a .config, and kernel-package provides one. Would it not make sense
for the config provided to be as close to the config the official
packages use? make defconfig does not, as far as I know, give you the
config that debian uses -- it just produces a .config from the
default values of config elements, which is nowhere close to the same
thing.
manoj
--
All most people want is a little more than they'll ever get.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
