From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19875 invoked by uid 1002); 4 Oct 2003 06:34:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 15148 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2003 06:34:34 -0000 Message-ID: <3F7E6A00.2020503@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:34:40 -0400 From: Kumba Reply-To: kumba@gentoo.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <3F7D4315.1020900@gentoo.org> <200310031034.39985.iggy@gentoo.org> <200310032350.29684.luke-jr@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200310032350.29684.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Speaking of new kernels being added to the tree X-Archives-Salt: 0dae8bca-d868-483d-a4ce-c1d9e1c88461 X-Archives-Hash: eb541ed2249b63d02d1bb3badd1e731c Luke-Jr wrote: > Another suggestion... Why not move away from -sources and make ebuilds based > on genkernel (eg. sys-kernel/{,{gentoo,redhat,suse,...}-}linux). There would > need to be something for manual configuration changes, but I believe > genkernel already supports something like this. The only problem I can see is > that it would end up recompiling the entire kernel for every configuration > change, though that's a Portage bug that affects all ebuilds currently. > Is there any reason to install the kernel sources anymore and not do this? I'm quite fine installing kernel sources. There is still a random package or three out there that expects to have a valid /usr/src/linux link. Also, genkernel is not a good idea, IMHO, mainly because it is x86-specific. It does not take into account the non-x86 kernel sources we maintain. How difficult it would be to modify genkernel to be arch independent, I have no idea. It probably wouldn't take much, but would require input from all arch teams to explain the various behaviors between kernels. sparc/sparc64 for instance does not use a "bzImage" target, but instead a "vmlinux" target on 2.4. vmlinux is dropped off in the root of the kernel tree. In 2.6, sparc/sparc64 use "make Image", and drops a file off in arch/sparc[64]/boot. ppc, hppa, & mips are probably different in some aspects. All in all, I guess I'm a bit of a purist...I kinda like having a kernel tree around, and with the advent of huge harddrives, the ~200mb of space it takes up is almost negligible. Besides, it's fun to have a copy of the kernel source lying around to grep for funny C comments when you're bored. --Kumba -- "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list