On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:10:00 +1300 Volker Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It now requires 2.1GB to build your own kernel. Obviously less if you > > get rid of all of the options that you don't need, which is a long and > > tedious task to say the least! > > Let's see. How about piling up all the CDs which ship with mobos, > graphics cards, mice (wtf for?), in fact any card, measure their height > in metres, and copy their content to hard disk. (Does it fit?) Then we > multiply by a factor of 3 to 5 to get the equivalent for the source > code. Surely 2.1GB compares very favourably! Not when 2.6.13.1 took well under 1GB, no. > > If you have such an underspeced box that you can't compile a kernel on > it, either compile it on another box, or install $distrokernel. Or get a > $25 1394 card with a different chipset. No, I only allocate 10GB for /usr, which includes /usr/local. And I only have one PCI slot which has a decent sound card in it. > > No sorry, can't help with nvidia 2. > > Volker > > -- > Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in > header > http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me. Thanks for your comments, Steve
