Re: A newbie's view

["Seth M. Landsman" <seth@job.cs.brandeis.edu>]

On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 07:38:49PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > 	Well, there are lots of people who don't read documentation.  If
> > you don't believe that, you're kidding yourself ... :)
> oh I know. But wouldn't it be nice.
> 
> (small reverie about people reading documentation)
> 
> ok I'm back.
> 
	:)

> > 	I think, besides have lilo backup a working kernel, the make
> > process should do some sort of integrity check on the kernel to make sure
> > it would boot (i.e., check that the elf loader is in there).  It isn't
> > very useful to tell the user that this failed if you don't given them some
> > clue how or why it failed.
> 
> This sounds like a good idea.
> 
> Definitely should be added to the list.
> 
> Although a lot of this sounds like an aftermarket extra - Some sort of build
> script/interface that is very easy to deal with. and very tolerant. and
> cautious.
> 

	This definitely shouldn't be part of the kernel proper (i.e., the
kernel that is compiled should be identical after these changes go in).
But I do think things like this should be part of the kernel makefile ...
	I think for any complex system, it becomes increasingly necessary
to have some sort of good configuration and testing facility.  I think
that the kernel is lacking in both.

-Seth
--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion"
-
Linux-future: thinking about the future of the Linux kernel
http://humbolt.nl.linux.org/lists/