Re: compiling 2.6
From: P.T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 06:28:02 +0100
William D. Tallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> P.T. Breuer wrote:
> >> 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!
> ROFL!! Hello, Peter! Yep, makes no sense at all: the first 'not' was a
> typo.. <sigh>
Ahhhhhh. Maybe you mean "there is functionality which only becomes
available as parts of a monolithic kernel"? Don't know of any myself,
but of course, there are a lot of kernel options! Yes, there are still
compile choices which don't have "M" as an option, but fewer than in the
past (you try compiling SMP support as a module!).
> >> Obviously, I haven't read all the literature,
> > There's nothing to read. What are you talking about?
> I'm talking about all the literature that is applicable to the new kernel.
I don't know of any, except Configure.help.
> Now, you do know that such literature exists, don't you... <grin>
Nope :(. I f you would point me to it, I have a few questions I would
like resolved, like "why has removable media support gone fubar"?
> > In what? There's no conceivable difference, and nobody knows what you
> > are talking about!
> No differences? Why a new minor number, then?
Because the new kernel is binary incompatible with the old. Old modules
don't work on new. New don't work on old.
> >> > 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.
> Well, actually I've gotten to the point with this kernel that I'm
> editing .config, just to make sure that I'm seeing all the choices. I've
That's fine (it's what I do), but it doesn't show you all choices.
> found that choices appear or disappear depending on other choices, and that
> bothers me.
But it's what you should expect! It's always been the case.
> In any case, some functionality formerly available as modules is now said to
> be compiled directly into the kernel.
I don't know of any. Rather, the other way around!
> I gather that this means there is no
> choice in the matter. Also, some stuff is deprecated in favor or new stuff
> (like asla instead of oss; acpi instead of apm; etc).
This is not so - it's simply that much alsa stuff has moved into the
kernel, mutating as it goes, displacing some oss stuff. The result is
Acpi has NOT replaced apm, though is much improved.
> As I'm very slow of
> wit, it'll take me some time to discover all this myself, so I thought I'd
> ask here first.
I think you are asking "what's new"? That question is answered in some
standard place on the web, but I forget where.