| 1 |
On Thursday 02 May 2002 10:40, linux-dev wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> What to make of all this? I'm in as much of a dilemma as many others, |
| 4 |
> and the first impulse was to create my own Gentoo kernel with all of |
| 5 |
> the performance and security patches + XFS (which seems to be simply an |
| 6 |
> image size issue--based on D. Robbin's "I was able to really enhance |
| 7 |
> this kernel because I didn't have the huge XFS patch to get in the way.", |
| 8 |
> rather than a stability issue). If XFS creates instability in the |
| 9 |
> newest kernel sources, this should be mentioned, since many people |
| 10 |
> will read the install documentation thinking the following excerpt |
| 11 |
> more or less means "stable": |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It's not a size issue (AFAIK). What Daniel meant, was that the XFS patch is |
| 14 |
"huge _and intrusive_", and making it work with other patches (like -ac for |
| 15 |
instance) is really not trivial. I know, because I've tried myself. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I do agree though, that if this problem isn't worked around or solved, the |
| 18 |
docs should be changed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
FWIW, I'm going to sit down and take another look at these patches right now, |
| 21 |
so wish me luck :P |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Joachim Blaabjerg |
| 25 |
styx@×××××.org |
| 26 |
www.SuxOS.org |
Archives