Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:08:07PM +0000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:48:30 +0000
>> David Laight <david@l8s.co.uk> wrote:
> [..]
> 
>>> Which actually bets the question of the sanity of having two files.
>>> (Yes, you may want to strip some non-loadable info for small systems,
>>> but in general you don't need to worry that much.)
>>>
>> Agreed.  If there's no run-time hit from the version with symbols, why
>> strip them by default?
> 
> Because, as mentioned in another thread recently, not all systems support
> booting such a big kernel.

Do we need to use the same kernel build options for all systems?

> And it can make a different for existing systems when you don't have a
> big root file system. I wouldn't be able to have more then one kernel on my
> system, because there is no need for a 30 MB kernel and therefor / isn't
> so big to keep two.

I don't see why the way people have historically partitioned disks
should dictate which kernels we build and distribute by default in
the future.

Darren