Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:06:28 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > >>>> I've seen a dev complain that most of the problems he's had to deal >>>> with have been due to oldconfig, so I don't use it at all. I copy >>>> the config in from the previous tree, then I run menuconfig and >>>> search for lines ending in [NEW] or [DEPRECATED]. >>>> >>> How is this different from using make oldconfig, apart from the UI? >>> >> I don't know; I just pick up my clues where I can. Perhaps there's a >> difference in handling of unchanged or default values. >> > > Unchanged values are just that. When a config option is new, make > oldconfig prompts for a choice,with a default option (the same default > that menuconfig uses). The only real difference is that with menuconfig > you have to go through the options, looking for those marked NEW (and > risking missing an important one) while oldconfig presents them to you in > sequence,asking for your choice on each one. > > I have boxes running 2.6.28 on which I have used oldconfig on every > change since switching them from2.4 to 2.6. > > >
I been using oldconfig a long time too and never had trouble with it. It basically will make the same kernel but with bug/security fixes. I even copied the config over then forgot to run oldconfig and it compiled and booted just fine. I think FUD was the right term for this one. Major versions, make it by hand; incremental upgrades works fine with oldconfig. Dale :-) :-)
