Re: compiling 2.6

From: P.T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 03/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:41:52 +0100

William D. Tallman <wtallman@olypen.com> wrote:
> Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> > William D. Tallman wrote:
> >
> >> So what is the consensus on compiling the 2.6 kernel: cram it in the
> >> kernel
> >> 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.*
>
> There are functions said not to be compiled directly into the kernel, and so
> not available as modules.

This sentence makes no sense. If they are not compiled in the kernel
then they are in modules. There is nowhere else!

> Obviously, I haven't read all the literature,

There's nothing to read. What are you talking about?

> but thought I'd ask here to see if any differences have already been noted.

In what? There's no conceivable difference, and nobody knows what you
are talking about!

> May I ask how extensive your experience with this new kernel might be?

Mines a lot more than yours!

> > It doesn't seem to me any less "straightforward".
> > The GUI interface to "make xconfig" is a lot nicer.
>
> Ummm... well, I don't really like GUIs all that much, so I can't comment.

So use make config or make menuconfig or edit .config yourself.

Peter

Relevant Pages