Compile the kernel

[Tom H]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Amedee Van Gasse (ub)
<amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:
> On Wed, June 2, 2010 13:30, Tom H wrote:
>
>>> I'm sorry if I am spoiling all your fun, but there is *official* Ubuntu
>>> documentation about building an upstream (plain vanilla) kernel:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
>>>
>>> Please also read the documentation about building an Ubuntu kernel:
>>>
>>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kernel/Compile
>>
>> The help.ubu.. link is for ubuntu kernel sources not clean, kernel.org
>> ones.
>
> I never wrote that it was. However you'd better read it as background
> information, how else are you ever going to know what you're doing?

I realize that you didn't say that the help.ubuntu... url was for
kernel.org sources. What I was implying was that the page didn't apply
to pristine kernel sources because it directs you to running commands
with "debian/rules" in them (or something along these lines) and other
Ubuntu/Debian kernel-source-specific procedures.


>> I would not call the wiki.ubuntu... link official. Anyone can edit
>> them. IIRC, Robert added something about "make oldconfig" when he was
>> looking at docs for writing his howto.
>
> I would suppose that a page with "KernelTeam" in the url would be
> maintained by the Ubuntu Kernel Team.
>
> If you look at the page history, you will see that it was created by Leann
> Ogasawara, who works at Canonical as a Quality Assurance Engineer and who
> is a member of the Canonical Kernel team & the Ubuntu Kernel Uploaders.
> The top 3 other people that made the most contributions (in changed bytes,
> not in edit counts) are all members of the Ubuntu Kernel Team.
>
> So yeah, I consider that pretty darn official, as far as officiality goes
> in any Open Source project.
>
> The least one can say is that those two pages *should* contain the correct
> information, and that in theory if you find something else on the web that
> conflicts, it means that those other sites are probably wrong or mistaken.
>
> Please take all of this with an extra grain of halite. :)

Leann O may have edited it and that particular page may be OK but I
don't trust the wiki.ubuntu... pages completely and don't consider
them official because anyone can edit them.

Robert made a change to that kernel page. AFAIK, he is new to Ubuntu
(he is a regular on the Fedora users list) and isn't affiliated with
either Canonical or Ubuntu. So, Karl could register and start editing
pages with his own version of good advice. This doesn't inspire any
confidence in the wiki.ubuntu... pages.

If there is one thing that Ubuntu does really badly, it's the
documentation on ubuntu.com. There should be a documentation
"handbook" for every version (help.ubuntu.com/lucid or
help.ubuntu.com/10.04), in the same way that Debian, Fedora, RHEL, and
CentOS do, and not the current chaotic style.