On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:04:44 -0400 Gary Dale <garyd...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 10/07/12 11:28 PM, Celejar wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:21:37 -0400 > > Gary Dale<garyd...@rogers.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/07/12 10:52 PM, Celejar wrote: > >>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:20:05 -0400 > >>> Gary Dale<garyd...@rogers.com> wrote: > > ... > > > >>>> Having a portable kernel is a lot simpler than trying to rescue a > >>>> non-bootable machine from a live CD. > >>> True - but then I can just grab a distro stock kernel before I swap > >>> HDDs. > >>> > >> You still need to go through the aggravation of booting from a live CD > >> then setting up a chroot environment just to get around the fact that > >> you compiled a non-portable kernel. You wouldn't have to do any of that > >> if you had just stuck with the stock kernel. > > I must have misunderstood what you meant. If machine A is non-bootable, > > then I need to recover using resources from machine B. But even if > > machine B generally runs my custom kernel, before I pull its HDD and > > move it to A, I can just add a stock kernel to B. Can you explain what > > you mean here? > The reason machine A is not bootable is because a minor hardware change > is capable of doing that with a custom kernel. I'm not talking about > using a machine with a custom kernel to rescue another machine, I'm > talking about the much greater chance that a machine with a custom > kernel will need rescuing. Oh, okay. But this is just an argument for keeping at least one generic kernel on the machine, which I always do. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731132951.5b8be76a.cele...@gmail.com
