Re: Slink kernel compilation
On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 04:44:45PM -0500, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 03:12:06PM +0000, Nikita Schmidt wrote:
> > Generic kernels autodetect MILO/SRM. A non-generic kernel must be
> > configured for either MILO or SRM. I think Debian also ships generic
> > kernels on the installation disks.
>
> No, we didn't for slink (at least that's what I gather from the
> boot-floppies makefile), but I plan on doing so for potato. By the way, was
> it even possible to build a generic kernel from 2.0.35? (I figure you would
> know :)
>
At slink release time I actually put a generic 2.2.1 based kernel in
the slink disks-alpha, but it was probably unusable for most people
(2.2.1 was unstable and moreover for this kernel I had enabled RTC
without the "RTC_Light" patch which restrospectively means it was
probably not bootable on the majority of platforms).
As for the MILO/SRM debate, I think the SRM PALcode is generally a bit
more trustworthy than the MILO one, which would justify a bias towards
SRM/aboot. For slink, the standard install procedure was instead to
always boot MILO when available (eventually doing it this on top of
SRM), the reason for this choice was to divide by two the number of
kernels to supply.
With the generic support now available in 2.2 kernels, I think debian
should now favor SRM without MILO (for all platforms for which SRM is
available).
Regards,
Loic
Reply to: