On 2006-08-15, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> I'm not sure I see any advantage to this. > > Just to add a "me too" to this, and for the same reasons Bruce states > (i.e. the tarball and kernel config are available for rebuilds should > they be necessary).
The identity of the kernel tree is somewhat vague. Eg., it can be a patched one (like it is the case with LFS SVN, although only slightly in this case). It's error-prone to re-create the kernel tree. > If this is too painful for folks then they should > put pressure on those out-of-tree driver maintainers to get them > in-tree! Hey, that's policy! > Any userspace app that needs the kernel source around is > probably doing something it shouldn't (now I'll just wait for someone to > point me to some really useful program that needs it!). One might as well want to play around devel versions of modules which are in the kernel already. Csaba -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
