There are many times I would have found (and, I anticipate, many times I
will find) an autoconfigurator useful in my work, if only to get a
rough-cut kernel configuration done in minimal time. For my purposes,
it doesn't have to be 100% correct to save me some significant amount of
work.
Does this mean I'm incapable of configuring a kernel with the available
tools? No. And it doesn't mean I think there needs to be some grand
shift in the way distro vendors provide kernels, but this kind of a
facility would be useful for *me*. I don't want to get into whether
this is an appropriate thing to make easily accessible to good ol' Aunt
Tillie.
>From the other side, how does having the ability to probe local hardware
hurt? It should be cleanly seperable from the classical build process
for the purists, and helpful to some (I think) significant portion of
the userbase, particularly those folks who like to test bleeding edge
stuff on a variety of hardware. I don't really understand the
resistance to the idea of someone going out and implementing this.
my $.02.
-Justin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:47 EST