On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 13:12 -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:29:46 +0100 > Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 10:05 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > * On 2014 11 Feb 07:20 -0600, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > > Any reason why people should *not* distrust this kernel? > > > > > > > > I was thinking the same thing. Why the rush to upgrade kernels anyway? > > > > > > Indeed. Those needing cutting edge features should only get the source > > > from a known source such as kernel.org > > > > +1 > > > > > and know how to build a custom kernel. > > > > That's easy to learn, even for newbies and compiling likely takes less > > But note that it's very easy to run into serious problems by disabling > something necessary to boot and run properly.
Nobody who for what reasons ever would install a release candidate kernel, would remove a stable kernel. I even keep a stable kernel when upgrading to another kernel that should be stable. Instead of disabling something, it at least for a newbie would be wise to use a Debian default config and than to run make oldconfig. > > than 2 hours on a modern machine. > > My T61 (Core 2 Duo @ 2GGz) builds my custom kernels in something like > ten minutes. Never ever, if you keep a default configuration. You likely removed modules that are irrelevant for you. I need around 90 minutes to build a kernel, with a config that is nearly a Debian default config, CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=2, on an AMD Athlon dual-core 2.1 GHz, 4 GiB RAM. -- 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/1392145110.1020.24.camel@archlinux
