From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:22:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:22:07 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:44445 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:21:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:21:37 -0600 Message-Id: <200106141721.f5EHLbJ30175@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Alexander Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Download process for a "split kernel" (was: obsolete code must die) In-Reply-To: <01061418252007.00879@starship> In-Reply-To: <01061418252007.00879@starship> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Phillips writes: > On Thursday 14 June 2001 10:34, Alexander Viro wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > This sounds a lot like apt-get, doesn't it? > > > > Folks, RTFFAQ, please. URL is attached to the end of each posting. > > The FAQ blesses the idea of people setting up incremental download > services, condems the idea of asking Linus to change his procedures > to support this. As it should. > It has nothing to say about the idea of leveraging the cml2 code > base to let apt-get configure and build kernels better, which was > the point of my post. That has been left as an excercise for the FAQ reader. > Presumably you want this question added to the FAQ? ;-) Going into this in detail is not the purpose of the FAQ, but a small, concise patch will be looked upon favourably :-) A link to a more detailed page would nicely supplement a small chunk of text. Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca