| 1 |
On Sat, 2004-05-01 at 00:31 -0400, Kumba wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nathaniel McCallum wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Warpzero and I have been discussing a GLEP to integrate kernel building |
| 5 |
> > support into portage instead of gentoo. Please don't flame me yet, I've |
| 6 |
> > been trying to get a hold of pfeifer and plasmaroo to discuss it with |
| 7 |
> > them (if you guys read this, let me know). Nothing is formal yet, I'm |
| 8 |
> > just working on the details and when something is more formal, we'll |
| 9 |
> > post it. (BTW, integrating kernel building into portage is a HUGE asset |
| 10 |
> > to the GentooInstaller team). |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Nathaniel |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This sounds interesting. I'm making a guess here, but would this entail |
| 15 |
> doing something like extending one of the existing kernel.eclasses to |
| 16 |
> incorporate appropriate kernel building/installing functions? Users can |
| 17 |
> store kernel configs in some dir in /etc, which get used by the eclass? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Very roughly, yes. There are a whole slew of other things though. ie. |
| 20 |
how to treat kernel sources after merge. How to support automated |
| 21 |
initrd building/bootsplash support, etc. default kernel configs. |
| 22 |
assisted config making. non-kernel modules. among other things. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Nathaniel |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list |
Archives