On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:19:28PM -0700, Nate Campi wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:57:24PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 03:24:59PM -0700, Nate Campi wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 03:17:45PM -0700, Nate Campi wrote: [...] > > In some ways trying to use the same kernel introduces as much risk as it > > avoids... I'd probably be inclined to risk a new kernel rather than risk > > stuffing up running the old kernel under a new distro... > > There's always a hundred reasons one approach *could* fail, and if you > have an old kernel that needs modules and an initrd image this approach > is more difficult. > > He needs to be _very_ careful with this approach no matter which advice > he acts on. If his current kernel is a non-modular kernel with no initrd > image (like mine was), I strongly advise re-using it.
Agreed. _If_ the existing kernel is non-modular with no initrd, then use it. You still want to make sure you are using a fs that is compiled in. However, most distro's now use fully modular initrd images. I have found the Debian default modular kernels to work fine with every hardware combination I have thrown at them. The only time I compile kernels now is when I want something highly unusual and/or special that the default kernels don't have (ie, DOV, IPSec, etc). Even in these cases, I use the same kernel config, only tweaking it as required, and build a kernel-package modular initrd packages. This way I know that the kernel can handle any fs or additional hardware I throw at it without having to recompile. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key ----------------------------------------------------------------------