In <m12JbCK-000OVtC@amadeus.home.nl> Arjan van de Ven (root@fenrus.demon.nl) wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.KSI2.0002102116020.12118-100000@nomad.ksi-linux.com> you wrote:
>>> Maybe for your precise configuration. I can kill 2.1.125 in a few seconds 8)
>> Alan, I have YOUR kernels in my stock. Actually my distribution have been
>> built around 2.2.5-ac-something. We do use 2.2.10-ac10 with some version of
>> devfs as "stable" kernels. I'm talking about VANILLA 2.2.*. Neither of them
>> builds outta the box with my configuration chosen for making a distribution
>> kernel package. Having your patches applied, some of them do.
> Can you please send me your .config then (the one that doesn't work)?
> 2.2.14 should compile for every[1] .config.
Not for every but for most natural .config's :-) Yes, 2.2.14 is MUCH better
here. Since it's basically Cox's kernel :-) Usually situation is the following:
Linus's kernels can not be compiled in WAST range of configurations (like
"everything in modules, everything enabled") while Cox's kernels can do this
(ok, sometimes there are glitches to but usually compileability of Cox's kernels
are order of magnitude better then compileability of Linus's kernels).
It's more or less normal for development kernels but it's NOT Ok for stable
ones. I understood that Linus has LOTS OF things to worry about apart of
compileability of kernels with weird .config but then perhaps Cox should
release stable kernels from the very beginning ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST