From: Erik S. <er...@sl...> - 2005-09-10 09:48:08
|
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 11:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:25:00PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > =20 > > The best would be to avoid using defaults completely, unless the result= ing=20 > > kernel is non-functional (e.g. it doesn't compile or boot). > > So far it's still the responsibility of the user to explicitly turn=20 > > everything on he needs (at least until we have a functional autoconfig)= . > > BTW distros are not the only users, from them I would expect how to=20 > > configure a kernel. >=20 > Actually, this sounds pretty sane and IMHO is somehow the biggest common > denominator concerning linux users and their kernel configuration > recreational activities :); but seriously, going all over the menus of Kb= uild > and turning everything off is a lot of work compared to turning on the > several things I need on my system. "default m" is also not a good thing > since compiling of unnecessary modules is simply dumb for a system > that's just not going to use them. Not to mention the bugs you get for free while you don't even (actively) use the offending module/piece of code. |