Re: Re; 4KSTACKS again.

[Ben Steeves <bcs metacon ca>]

On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 00:25, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Ben Steeves <bcs metacon ca> said:
> > I simply don't understand why the option has to be taken out early.  Why
> > not just ship a kernel with it turned on by default... wouldn't that be
> > equivalent?
> 
> This is a test release and development tree, leading up to a release in
> a month or two (I don't remember the schedule off the top of my head).
> The idea of a test release is to test as much as possible of what the
> final release will look like.

I'm sorry, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.  No one has
answered my actual question yet, which is: what's the difference between
providing the XXXXXXXX compile option and supplying a kernel with it
turned ON, and enabling XXXXXXXX in the kernel without a compile
option?  Wouldn't the resulting kernel be -- for all intents and
purposes -- the same, while providing people who depend on a particular
compile option the ability to compile kernels from the Fedora kernel
package?  Wouldn't that make everyone reasonably happy?  

I used XXXXXXXX instead of 4KSTACKS 'cos I think this is a relevant
question for any compile option that suddenly goes away. 

As far as 4KSTACKS and Nvidia drivers go, I could care less.  

-- 
Ben Steeves                     _                    bcs metacon ca
 The ASCII ribbon campaign     ( )               ben steeves unb ca
   against HTML e-mail          X                GPG ID: 0xB3EBF1D9
http://www.metacon.ca/ascii    / \     Yahoo Messenger: ben_steeves