Re: [OT] kernel 3.14-rc2 for Testing
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:58:30 +0100
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> 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
Of course - I just meant that troubleshooting why your new kernel, in
which you made lots of changes from the defaults, does not work, can be
a pain.
> 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.
Of course - mine is heavily stripped down.
> 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.
Celejar
Reply to: