[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why compiling.



On 10/07/12 11:28 PM, Celejar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:21:37 -0400
Gary Dale<garydale@rogers.com>  wrote:

On 10/07/12 10:52 PM, Celejar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:20:05 -0400
Gary Dale<garydale@rogers.com>   wrote:
...

Having a portable kernel is a lot simpler than trying to rescue a
non-bootable machine from a live CD.
True - but then I can just grab a distro stock kernel before I swap
HDDs.

You still need to go through the aggravation of booting from a live CD
then setting up a chroot environment just to get around the fact that
you compiled a non-portable kernel. You wouldn't have to do any of that
if you had just stuck with the stock kernel.
I must have misunderstood what you meant. If machine A is non-bootable,
then I need to recover using resources from machine B. But even if
machine B generally runs my custom kernel, before I pull its HDD and
move it to A, I can just add a stock kernel to B. Can you explain what
you mean here?
The reason machine A is not bootable is because a minor hardware change is capable of doing that with a custom kernel. I'm not talking about using a machine with a custom kernel to rescue another machine, I'm talking about the much greater chance that a machine with a custom kernel will need rescuing.


Reply to: