| 1 |
On Saturday 04 Oct 2003 14:33, Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> I am sure I am doing a huge injustice to the author of genkernel, but |
| 3 |
> it's more hassle for me to find out what I did wrong than to continue |
| 4 |
> to do things manually. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Please can we keep things simple..? Gentoo is such a great |
| 7 |
> distribution, complexity has the potential to diminish it from its |
| 8 |
> current (IMO) near perfection. Surely there are far better things for |
| 9 |
> inclusion in Portage3. Iis there any timeframe on that, BTW..? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I agree. I also tried genkernel once and took an instant dislike to it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'd prefer it if more effort were put into the ability to switch kernels |
| 14 |
without having always to remerge nvidia, lm+sensors and the like cf. |
| 15 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1477 |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Peter |
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
====================================================================== |
| 20 |
Portage 2.0.49-r3 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r1, |
| 21 |
2.4.22_pre2-gss) |
| 22 |
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+ |
| 23 |
====================================================================== |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives