Re; 4KSTACKS again.
Ben Steeves
bcs at metacon.ca
Wed Apr 14 11:49:16 UTC 2004
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?
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 at metacon.ca
The ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) ben.steeves at unb.ca
against HTML e-mail X GPG ID: 0xB3EBF1D9
http://www.metacon.ca/ascii / \ Yahoo Messenger: ben_steeves
More information about the test
mailing list