a couple thoughts on ct-ng

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>]

  so, just before heading out to the gym, a couple observations on
ct-ng (again, based on a *very* brief examination):

1) there's no dependency for the choice of endianness on the selected
architecture.  does that really make sense?  shouldn't some
architectures *enforce* the selection of endianness?

2) the location of the kernel headers should be extended to include a
simple directory, in which i would prefer to place my *own* sanitized
kernel headers generated by running a "make headers_install" in my
kernel source tree of choice.

3) regarding the choice of "kernel to use", what is the value of this
beyond the need to get the sanitized headers?  if i provide my own
headers, is there any reason to need a kernel source tree beyond that?
if not, then there should be a choice of "none."  in fact, if all i
need are those headers, i would really have no need of that entire
"kernel" config submenu, would i?

rday

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq