James Rayner wrote: > I still believe seperating out kernels for different systems is wrong, > and have yet to see any evidence to support the contrary. It > contradicts the goals of the kernel itself. > In addition, it just increases load on maintainers.
definitely true, keep in mind though that if one ask for the opinion, some people give them one :-) Whether one uses it or not is their decision. I'd like merely to point out that if one decides to go for more then one kernel their efforts will not be vain. Somebody will be using them and they will have some reasons to do so. > For anyone else who tries to suggest these silly names, state what you > would actually put in them to differentiate them. in my opinion laptop specific features might require a laptop specific kernel. I have in mind suspend and cpu frequency/voltage throttling. Of course one (a developer) can enable them in the stock kernel and Bob's your uncle but afair it was not the part of the standard kernel. I have been always running beyond (RIP) or ck kernels on my pc with stock as the fallback. To recap: - I think it might have sense to have laptop specific kernel or integrate the features in the stock one. - I would like to have at least two kernels available (one as fallback kernel). They can be: a) A kernel from community repo, b) or I could use the laptop one on my desktop (since it is mainly for the fallback purposes) waldek _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
