Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels?

[Terje Kvernes <terjekv@math.uio.no>]

Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> The arch specific ones should have maintainers, the arch
> maintainers.  The patchset specific ones are (in my opinion) pretty
> much pointless.  Sure, some people like them, but it seems like a
> strange way to track a -mm or -aa or -ck kernel using a ebuild.  But
> that's just my opinion.

  personally, I find it very practical to have emerge fetch and patch
  the patchset-kernels I use -- I run -mm and occasionally test -ck.
  this makes it one less thing I have to think about looking for every
  so often, even though I get l-k delivered.  ;-)
 
> Oh, remember, those patchset specific kernels usually never get the
> security updates that the "supported" kernels do (g-s and g-d-s).

  "security" is rarely the reason for using patchset-kernels.  for my
  part, it's mostly to test the newest and greatest sources with a lot
  of extras.  considering FireWire, SATA and a few other tidbits like
  that are used a lot around here, I tend to test tings quite a bit.
  and for the record, I really wish my motherboard had something other
  than Sil3112.  SATA compliance with as much fuzz as possible.

  
  but, since I'm curious...  Greg, are you maintaining g-d-s these
  days?  if so, I could move a box or two over.  SATA shouldn't be a
  problem there, should it?  :-)

  oh, and how you find the time to do all that l-k work and Gentoo is
  damn impressive.  thank you for all the time you give to us users!
 
-- 
Terje - who wants to try the hotswap SATA canisters on his server.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list