Hi, On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > A user ran into the following problem: They grab a SuSE kernel-source > > > package that is more recent than their running kernel. The tree under > > > /usr/src/linux is unconfigured by default; there is no .config. User > > > does a ``make menuconfig'', which gets its default values from > > > /boot/config-$(uname -r). User tries to build the kernel, which doesn't > > > work. > > > > NAK. This isn't normally supposed to happen and it shouldn't be as bad > > anymore as it used to be. Removing these path doesn't magically create a > > working kernel. > > "Not normally supposed to happen" and "shouldn't be as bad anymore" > aren't very sound arguments. It's as precise as above problem report. > It's fundamentally broken to use a > semi-random configuration for a kernel source tree that may be > arbitrarily far apart. No, it's not. Please provide more information why exactly this is broken. > It's not uncommon that users who build their own kernel modules often > are very clueless. Nevertheless we shouldn't cause them pain > unnecessarily. So they should first try the 2.6 kernel provided by the distribution and then try compiling their own kernel. In this situation it's actually more likely that they produce a working kernel with the current behaviour, the defconfig is not a guarantee for a working kernel either. Sorry, but as long as nobody writes an autoconfig tool for the kernel, the kernel configuration is not a simple process and any default can only be a compromise and may fail. If you have evidence that there are better defaults, we can change this, but your problem report above is not enough. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
