From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MBvw0-0007bm-MR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:15:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D77DE068C; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA3BE068C for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so196428bwz.34 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:15:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=h2NGbtf81QZnk90njTyCV4xMpTkf1oDfyHzF13dk+jU=; b=pzpyKHR098teU/OcDDN6y4NjOv5QWQ37g9dBq8x7duygyZhDD/jWEv7KVwYJIhz7Fr Ausc98c1yZginRRuSw8smBWhCdIi0ToCnYy0cCu73p0d2F6cv7v1thte8IpkAHB1dEd6 OgUm/NYld4F/IFJmOXT3jEzxt8oq0sKwtg7Q8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=c1oUg/XDqLwoyf5D5EOkwNIHYWtGsvEYoXFm2IA+Aoux9b6lIKEL5efwLQMwX4F1n7 4VzoOumgZ/DlYZCaPufdrn1/ZkN0Utc3cy2tBMqJmqHVcOEA17u2iktTKhn1UV7DW7QK QgYUE6gUuiblW3ZlFvULnuOUSL1HeVdDIlBrU= Received: by 10.204.51.200 with SMTP id e8mr1163229bkg.175.1244056534210; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-153-123-rrdg-esr-2.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.153.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm278565fga.9.2009.06.03.12.15.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:15:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Kernel upgrade question: is it adviseable? Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:14:03 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.3 (Linux/2.6.29-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.2.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <04f801c9e462$1d0c19b0$6400a8c0@quan> <200906031750.01606.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <4A26A75C.3050001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A26A75C.3050001@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906032114.04014.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: d79f1fe0-ec77-46a3-9302-b8969e151f63 X-Archives-Hash: d91551e8f018ea0713605c89de413e24 On Wednesday 03 June 2009 18:39:56 Dale wrote: > >> will it respect the settings I've compiled > >> into 2.6.28 or will they need to be reset again before 2.6.29 is > >> compiled? > > > > No. Not unless you give it the old config to use. IIRC it has some > > feature to use the config for the currently running kernel > > (/proc/config.gz) if the running kernel supports it. But I could be may > > off course here too. > > Why not copy the config from the old kernel over and run make > oldconfig? May need to do some cleaning after genkernel tho. That's the correct way :-) But the OP asked if there was some magic way to get genkernel to use the same config as #SOME_OTHER_KERNEL. Which of course makes no sense as there can be multiple versions and configs present. The small remaining part of me that is still mostly unaffected by the onset of senility seems to remember genkernel being able to do something expressed as: zcat /proc/config.gz > /usr/src/linux/.config genkernel [....] Which I suppose is a reasonable thing for an app like genkernel to do. But I could also just be imagining it. It happens :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com