Clemens Koller wrote, in part:
Hi, there!
<
But all this is still a question about CRUX philosophy.
IMO CRUX isn't KISS - compiling a kernel for your hardware just isn't KISS even for the advanced user. I still make some mistakes to suit a (non-modular) kernel to my hardware if I have to do a config from scratch - even after reading thousands of code lines during my kernel driver development work in the past.
Or: maybe it's a wise decision to _not_ provide a kernel binary to keep all the non-professional users away from penetrating the CRUX user base, list and forum with birdbrained questions (What is Kernel Panic?) and stupid suggestions (Reinstall... or take some other distro).
I would vote against including a kernel binary. Crux is intended for those who would, sooner or later, encounter a requirement for rebuilding the kernel for some reason. Thus, the installation-time kernel build is a reasonable first occurrence. I came across Crux from a set of requirements *before* I could qualify as an "advanced user". The current Crux philosophy just worked fine for easing the learning curve for customized kernel/packages installation: not too steep, but not too many pitfalls hidden in automated scripts. Still, going through the learning has been, and will certainly be at occasions, a painful experience, but I don't see how the Crux maintainers can really make a difference. What I hope is that maintainers have a light workload in the medium and long term so that Crux remains *available* in its current form (i.e. no project collapse after trying to achieve unrealistic goals). Thanks, and best regards ... -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, QC, Canada H2M 2A1 Tel. +1-514-385-5691