Why no /proc/config.gz on FC-3 kernel?

[Dag Wieers]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 03:17:49AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
>  > >  > One good reason to do it is that you can be sure the config matches 
>  > >  > exactly what is currently running.
>  > >  ls /boot/config-`uname -r`
>  > 
>  > It does not give the same guarantees as /proc/config.gz though, it may not 
>  > even exist.
> 
> The only way it wouldn't exist that's been demonstrated so far has been
> through someone cluelessly installing a kernel by non-standard means.
> (rpmbuild does the right thing, make install does the right thing, leaving
>  just a series of cp's/mv's by hand as the only possible way to screw up).

Fair enough, I wasn't aware this has become the standard enforced 
practice.


> There's still no guarantee that /proc/config.gz exists either (supposing I
> enabled /proc/config.gz in the Fedora kernel). There's still the possibility
> that someone is running a self-compiled kernel with it disabled.

True, but if Red Hat would enable it, it will be influencing other users 
to enable it too. BTW is it enabled by default in a vanilla kernel ?


> This thread has got about as interesting as the 'where is the
> kernel-source for fc3' threads.  Can we stop kicking this dead horse now?

This is my last then :) I'm sure people hoped it was still alive or 
at least stuburnly playing dead, but if you say it's dead...

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]