| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Surely even that isn’t good enough, since the user could have built an |
| 3 |
> option as a module, tested it out, discovered it worked fine, and then |
| 4 |
> rebuilt the kernel with the option set to Y, but the .ko file would |
| 5 |
> still be left lying around? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yup. Until the day comes when we have a USE flag for every kernel |
| 8 |
parameter (in both built-in and module form) and just have the ebuild |
| 9 |
actually build and install the kernel, it is going to be messy. The |
| 10 |
kernel is a bit unique in that we just dump a pile of source on the |
| 11 |
disk and ask the user to have at it. Note that I'm by no means |
| 12 |
advocating that we actually do any of that - the kernel is unusual in |
| 13 |
that it is EXTREMELY configurable otherwise this is probably what |
| 14 |
would have been done. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As I mentioned in my last email maybe having a kernel package that |
| 17 |
does do exactly that for a desktop-oriented kernel with maybe only a |
| 18 |
few USE options might not be a bad idea - perhaps even managing grub |
| 19 |
config and all. That could be something that would make life easier |
| 20 |
on users who don't care to customize their kernels. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives