Re: Why compiling.

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:04:44 -0400
Gary Dale <garydale@rogers.com> wrote:

> 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.

Oh, okay. But this is just an argument for keeping at least one generic
kernel on the machine, which I always do.

Celejar