Re; 4KSTACKS again.

[ne...]

On Apr 14, 2004 at 08:49, Ben Steeves in a soothing rage wrote:

>On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 00:25, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Ben Steeves <bcs at 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?  
The provided kernel would be the same. However, the point
here is that this is a test release and at the risk of
sounding like a sycophant (spl?) the FC folks want/need
us to test what they put out, not what we compile and
install.

>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.  
Perfectly understandable.

N.Emile...
-- 
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
Switch to: http://www.speakeasy.net/refer/190653
HELLO KITTY gang terrorizes town, family STICKERED to death!
 08:23:27  up 24 days, 20:55,  4 users,  load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00