Re: [OT] kernel 3.14-rc2 for Testing
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 13:12 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:29:46 +0100
> Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 10:05 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > > * On 2014 11 Feb 07:20 -0600, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > > > Any reason why people should *not* distrust this kernel?
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking the same thing. Why the rush to upgrade kernels anyway?
> > >
> > > Indeed. Those needing cutting edge features should only get the source
> > > from a known source such as kernel.org
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > and know how to build a custom kernel.
> >
> > That's easy to learn, even for newbies and compiling likely takes less
>
> But note that it's very easy to run into serious problems by disabling
> something necessary to boot and run properly.
Nobody who for what reasons ever would install a release candidate
kernel, would remove a stable kernel. I even keep a stable kernel when
upgrading to another kernel that should be stable. Instead of disabling
something, it at least for a newbie would be wise to use a Debian
default config and than to run make oldconfig.
> > than 2 hours on a modern machine.
>
> My T61 (Core 2 Duo @ 2GGz) builds my custom kernels in something like
> ten minutes.
Never ever, if you keep a default configuration. You likely removed
modules that are irrelevant for you.
I need around 90 minutes to build a kernel, with a config that is nearly
a Debian default config, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2, on an AMD Athlon dual-core
2.1 GHz, 4 GiB RAM.
Reply to: