Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Sunday, July 31 at 21:23 (-0500), Jeremy McSpadden said: Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Agreed, although it should be possible to go straight to menuconfig, what I think that does is basically says 'n' to all the changes, and you never get to see what you said no to. (Unless you have a *very* good memory and peruse though everything in menuconfig (but that isn't entirely correct either since some menu options will not be visible since you implicitly said not to them). Usually, I just do an oldconfig after a kernel upgrade. If I also need to explicitly enable/disable something, then i do an oldconfig followed by a menuconfig.
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:06:17 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? For some years now, make menuconfig has performed a silent make oldconfig before it brings up the menu. I stopped using make oldconfig in about 2007, after I was confident that the change to make menuconfig was working. - -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] == dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) == -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk42lHgACgkQRQ2Fs59Psv8qGwCeMv0fJ2mF8WcPm620U3m2iM5Y usYAnR2lUFi2jgBCmLDOIqAEZ22tzM7m =uV/i -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On 7/31/2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Necessary to run make old config? No. Easier and simpler most of the time? Yes. I like to make a fresh kernel from scratch every year or so without any previous settings to keep the cruft out. I last did it for my vbox image figuring I was going to need to very little hardware support so starting fresh made sense. kashani
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On 08/01/2011 12:00 PM, kashani wrote: On 7/31/2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Necessary to run make old config? No. Easier and simpler most of the time? Yes. Use oldconfig. Running 'oldconfig' will prompt you for any new sections/drivers that have appeared since your last kernel. Running 'menuconfig' will silently accept all of the defaults for these new options. Why is it safer if only the new stuff gets defaulted? Because on more than one occasion, there has been a group of drivers, e.g. wireless chipsets, that got a new enable anything option. So while you may have had your Atheros chipset enabled in the old kernel, the new kernel has a enable wireless networking option that defaults to no despite the fact that your old kernel had one or more wireless chipsets enabled. This also happened with the entire SATA subsystem, resulting in at least one extra trip to the office for me. I'm not bitter, though.
[gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, -- -- Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, -- -- Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
Jeremy McSpadden wrote: Better to run make oldconfig. It merges the changes. -- Jeremy McSpadden def...@uberpenguin.net Yep. I always run make oldconfig then just run make make modules_install. Once oldconfig is done, the kernel should be configured and ready to build. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? Rgds, It is not necessary but you'll be starting from scratch. Linux often suggests that's the best thing to do but I've done make oldconfig for 12 years now and never had a problem that I could trace back to using it. It certainly saves time. I also ALWAYS run make menuconfig following make oldconfig mainly so I can exit from menuconfig and get messages (if any) about config problems. Hope this helps, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] make oldconfig necessary?
On Jul 31, 2011 7:06 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Let's say I have a .config from an older kernel version (for example, 2.6.38), and now I want to install a newer kernel (let's say, 3.0). Is it necessary to first do `make oldconfig`, or is it safe to go directly to `make menuconfig`? You may also want to try make silentoldconfig
