Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:37:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:37:39 -0500 Received: from smtp1.ndsu.NoDak.edu ([134.129.111.146]:40204 "EHLO smtp1.ndsu.nodak.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:37:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Aunt Tillie builds a kernel (was Re: ISA hardware discovery --the elegant solution) From: Reid Hekman To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.1 Date: 15 Jan 2002 05:35:05 -0600 Message-Id: <1011094507.19657.15.camel@zeus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 04:40, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > Normal users should _never_ have to use > kernel.org trees. Yikes! Sayings about never saying "never" aside... I should think the goal is for everyone to be able to use kernel.org trees with reasonable expectations. I'd like to see the day when distros can include a pristine tree. I don't expect it, and the need for outside trees isn't going away, but I'd like to see kernel.org be the canonical Linux for more production systems, development starts, and non-i386 arch's. With respect to Aunt Tillie, hardware discovery and kernel configuration are separate issues. Can't the hardware probes be a separate package? The autoconfigurator I think will be useful, but can't the configurator just be dependent on outside packages like other functionality is dependent on isdn4k-utils or iptables? Regards, Reid "thinking this is getting offtopic" Hekman -- Current: reid.hekman@ndsu.nodak.edu Permanent: hekman@acm.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/