Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:13:24 +1300 From: Jonathan Chen <jonathan.chen@itouch.co.nz> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com> Cc: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multi-processor Support Message-ID: <20011109091324.B12313@jonc.itouch> In-Reply-To: <002d01c1682c$caa36480$0a00000a@atkielski.com>; from anthony@atkielski.com on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 09:10:08AM %2B0100 References: <00e001c167d2$1a27e5e0$6600000a@columbia> <002d01c1682c$caa36480$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 09:10:08AM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Andrew writes:
>
> > A simple kernel recompile with two additional
> > options is suddenly "risky" ?
>
> Anything that changes the kernel is risky--just as risky as reinstallation.
Have you actually tried this? A reinstallation risks wiping the disk
due to possible disk repartitioning and reallocations, but a kernel
compile is really quite safe.
If you get past the compile, the kernel is more than likely to boot up
fine (unless you *remove* options/devices). And then there's
kernel.old to boot from as well as kernel.GENERIC.
Please check your facts before offering up your opinions.
--
Jonathan Chen <jonathan.chen@itouch.co.nz>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When all else fails, RTFM
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011109091324.B12313>