Re: Re; 4KSTACKS again.

[Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net>]

Once upon a time, Ben Steeves <bcs metacon ca> said:
> 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?  

Did you read the messages in this thread?

It was stated that this option is going into the mainline kernel, and
that it will probably be the default, and probably (maybe after a
release or two) go away as an option.  Fedora is simply jumping the gun
a little because of test schedules.

If you don't like that the option is going in the mainline kernel and
may soon go away as a user-selectable option, this is not the place to
complain.  Try the linux-kernel list.  The kernel developers only have X
hours to work in a day, and if they choose to reduce the number of
user-selectable options to reduce the number of variations in kernels
when someone reports a problem, that is their choice.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.