| 1 |
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> And to the lies: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Lie: |
| 7 |
> because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel |
| 8 |
> created by |
| 9 |
> genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked in the past, |
| 10 |
> the |
| 11 |
> change is great that it sucks again in the future. Plus it doesn't really |
| 12 |
> make things easier, does it? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Thats a LIE, genkernel DOES not have ANY inteligence to create .config |
| 16 |
> for kernels, why is he spreading FUD about it creating "f* up" kernels. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
exactly, genkernel has no intelligence. So there is no reason to use it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Lie 2: It doesn't make things easier. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It does make things easier, again he is confusing automagic .config |
| 24 |
> creation with what genkernel can help with. The tool automate the task |
| 25 |
> involved in compiling kernels and/or maintaining multiple |
| 26 |
> configurations. And the Vol fellow really should start using genkernel |
| 27 |
> as his comment clearly demonstrate he does not take appropriate caution |
| 28 |
> to ensure that the kernel source is in a sane state between compiles. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
and how is make oldconfig && make all modules_install install harder to do |
| 31 |
than anything genkernel does? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
oh, it isn't? genkernel is just another step that can go wrong. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives