Re: compiling 2.6
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:02:26 +0000
William D. Tallman wrote:
> So what is the consensus on compiling the 2.6 kernel: cram it in the
> or keep it as modules?
I didn't understand this question.
I don't see any difference re modules between 2.4.* and 2.6.*
> It's certainly not as straightforward as the 2.4
> and earlier versions, it seems.
It doesn't seem to me any less "straightforward".
The GUI interface to "make xconfig" is a lot nicer.
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
- Re: 2.4.22 kernel size?
... > William D. Tallman wrote: ... >>feeling about this.... ... There haven't been any major changes. ...
- Re: Pre-decision, pre-newbie utterly basic questions re: Linux
... "William D. Tallman" ... > You, like so many others, see life as a series of problems designed to ... It is NOT a psychological litmus test, ...
- Re: /usr/src fails to compile on 7.x after csup to RELENG_8
... William D. Colburn (Schlake) wrote: ... I can make the kernel just fine, but if I try to make the world I get this: ...
- Re: compiling 2.6
... William D. Tallman wrote: ... > Timothy Murphy wrote: ... If they are not compiled in the kernel ... So use make config or make menuconfig or edit .config yourself. ...
- Re: Kernel 2.4 CPU Arch issues
... > On 07.21, William M. Quarles wrote: ... >>Pentium Pro as confiugration options, as you have done for the 2.6 ... >>kernel, or is it too late in the development for that? ...