> David <david@kalifornia.com> wrote:
> >
> > the `fix' is to make bzImage instead of zImage precisely as the warning
> > text suggests. it's a different compression/loader combination.
>
> Is zImage going to be phased out in favor of bzImage at some point?
> Then users wouldn't have to be confronted by this message. Is there
> some technical reason why it would be bad to always make a bzImage
> kernel if LILO/etc is compatible with it?
And exactly _how_ would we know LILO and the Hardware is compatible? We
can't assume the platform we compile on to be the one to install on; in
fact, the machines that suffers from the zImage only problem isn't really
the kind of machines you'd like to compile on anyway... (386's mostly).
Still, having bzImage as default (recommended, that is) option and zImage
as an option for those with troubles is a bright idea...
And having version-demands on LILO is the CHANGES-file would also qualify
as a nice idea...
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/