Bug 38584 – Differences in the config files by defaults in Genkernel 3.0 vs 1.8. The 1.8 one was more complete for a user not willing to spend hours figuring out what a .config file should look like

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Daniel Tourde 2004-01-18 02:55:47 UTC]

Hello,

I have just happened to update Genkernel 1.8 to Genkernel 3.0.1beta on my x86 box.
I am not interested AT ALL in messing around with the "thousands" of options in the kernel (2.4 as well as 2.6) configuration. I simply prefer to use one configuration that has been heavily tested and where most of the stuff are build up as modules, a kind of 'generic gentoo Linux config file'.
For me, modules are good because they are used if necessary, according to the hardware, the filesystem used etc etc... It does not hurt anyone to have a module file on the HD and the size of the kernel binary remains reasonable.
I see myself as a lazy common 'John Doe'. I just need a good common .config file, I have no specific need and if it happens that one day, I need a very specific function in the kernel, then I try to change the config file by myself, but only then!

I was very happy with the default-config provided by genkernel 1.8 (I think) and located under /etc/kernels. It was a perfect .config file for my need. Generic enough and complete enough for my daily needs and my hardware.
With genkernel 3.0.1, things changed. I might have misunderstood the use or the spirit of the new genkernel. In this case, please forgive me and please explain to me what I missed...
With genkernel 3.0.1, I was happy to see that I now had access to default config files for the 2.4 AND the 2.6 kernel: kernel-config-2.4 and kernel-config-2.6 in /usr/share/genkernel/x86.
I tried both with 2.4.22 and 2.6.1 and in both cases I have been disappointed:
genkernel --color --bootsplash all gave me the following results:
- 2.4.22: I had a problem while building the modules. I suspect an incompatibility between 2 kernel options. Being not a specialist, I did not even think about trying to find out which combination...
- 2.6.1: It builds fine but I lost many features in the kernel (one of them being the reiserfs support... which caused many partitions to remain unmounted and the system to become unusable). There it is clearly a config enabling too few features for my need.

I compared the old 2.4 (genkernel 1.8) with the new 2.4 (genkernel 3.0.1) and I noticed LARGE differences.

So now my comment/question. Isn't it possible to give genkernel 3.0.1 default files (2.4 and 2.6) as generic and convenient then the one given by genkernel 1.8?
As I said, I might have missed something. Then I apologize and I want to express my willingness to learn and corret my own faults... :)


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Update genkernel 1.8 -> 3.0.1
2. Rebuild a kernel (2.4 or 2.6) and use the default kernel config files.
3. Notice all the missing features (reiserfs etc etc...)
4. Compare, for instance, the default config files for 2.4 between genkernel 1.8 and genkernel 3.0.1 (/etc/kernels/default-config with /usr/share/genkernel/x86/kernel-config-2.4)

Actual Results:  
- I obtained a kernel uncomplete compared to the ones I was used to obtain with
genkernel 1.8. Using extensively reiserfs, I end up with most of my partitions
unmountable (for instance)
- I noticed large differences in the config files for 2.4. It seems like they
have few in common...

Expected Results:  
I think the /usr/share/genkernel/x86/kernel-config-2.x should be changed to
provide the same functionalities and modules than what
/etc/kernels/default-config provided.

[Comment 1 Brad House 2004-01-18 12:51:04 UTC]

talk to whoever is maintaining x86 these days
the amd64 config is complete, just whoever does x86
hasn't stepped up and provided proper configs.

-Brad

[Comment 2 Bob Johnson (RETIRED) 2004-01-18 13:01:57 UTC]

why not use configs from 1.8?

[Comment 3 Brad House 2004-01-18 13:26:29 UTC]

those were all 2.4 kernels only
and are old now.

[Comment 4 Bob Johnson (RETIRED) 2004-01-18 13:31:47 UTC]

Ok, that means someone needs to take them and "make oldconfig" and reuse. 
But i alwyas supplied the configs for genkernel and
example configs for the kernel team to supply in each
kernel. If your not going to do this, Iggy should probaly 
be made aware.

[Comment 5 Brad House 2004-01-18 13:35:05 UTC]

I do it for amd64, I make no claim to x86

[Comment 6 Aaron Peterson 2004-01-20 04:44:46 UTC]

This is a duplicate of 34950


I hate that I have to enable even gentoo requirements.

[Comment 7 Brad House 2004-01-28 19:12:34 UTC]

the configs have been updated in _beta8 by the maintainers of the 
various arches.