| 1 |
On 10/07/2011 12:16 PM, Jonas de Buhr wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> out of interest: why do you have different configs? even if you have |
| 4 |
> different hardware you could still build a "one fits all"-kernel. or |
| 5 |
> are they that specialized? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
We share kernel config whenever possible, but there are a few cases |
| 9 |
where they have to diverge. Basically any option that can't be compiled |
| 10 |
as a module is a candidate. Off the top of my head, |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
* We've got x86/amd64 |
| 13 |
* Intel/AMD |
| 14 |
* A couple with RAID hardware that can't have its module installed. |
| 15 |
* One server with a tulip NIC that can't use a particular driver. |
| 16 |
* A set where hyperthreading needs to be disabled |
| 17 |
* A virtual machine host that needs certain hardening features |
| 18 |
disabled |
| 19 |
* A separate config for VM guests |
| 20 |
* Headless vs. GUI requires more grsec/pax tweaking |
| 21 |
* Different HZ settings. Power management in general depends on what |
| 22 |
the box will be doing. |
| 23 |
* A firewall with no non-essential modules available |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We keep the configs in git, so if two are similar I can usually just |
| 26 |
pull the last changeset (after a make oldconfig) over. What sucks is |
| 27 |
testing, and of course driving to work to reboot everything off-hours. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> lets just agree on that. im kinda tired of this discussion. there's |
| 31 |
> nothing we can do about it anyway. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Agreed. |
Archives