Re: compiling 2.6
From: P.T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:41:52 +0100
William D. Tallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.