1 |
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Ryan Sims wrote: |
2 |
> On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <sep@×××××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
> > Volker Armin Hemmann skrev: |
4 |
> > > because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel |
5 |
> > > created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked |
6 |
> > > in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. |
7 |
> > > Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Your outright lying. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to |
14 |
> > stop saying anything. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Ok, let's all just take a deep breath, chill out and get back on-topic. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Clearly there are differing opinions/experiences about genkernel. We |
19 |
> needn't get into a "religious" war on either side; I have a certain |
20 |
> way I apporach kernel building that makes me avoid genkernel, that's |
21 |
> my choice. There are those who like what genkernel does, that's their |
22 |
> choice. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I've made the argument that a non-genkernel config is less complicated |
25 |
> than a genkernel config, and I think that's a supportable position. |
26 |
> I've also argued that the OP should think about hand-configuring from |
27 |
> scratch, as it reduces the number of variables to troubleshoot. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is |
30 |
> just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this |
31 |
> particular case (Volker please correct me if I'm wrong), which is a |
32 |
> valid point. |
33 |
|
34 |
well, in all cases ... |
35 |
|
36 |
> And it isn't "FUD" or "lies" to warn about having bad |
37 |
> experiences with a tool in the past. |
38 |
|
39 |
exactly. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |