Win4Lin (ask if the next yum kernel update would need to be seperately patched????)

[Bill Diamond]

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 22:23, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:

> It would appear that on May 2, Bill Diamond did say:
> 
> > If you're running Fedora 1 with the 2.4 kernel, you have a pretty good
> > shot at installing Win4Lin which will automatically build a new kernel
> > with the kernel features needed to run Win4Lin.  If you're running a 2.6
> > kernel, you'll need to go through the process of downloading the kernel
> > patch, applying it to the kernel source code, building the kernel and
> > installing it.  Most of this process is pretty well automated, so it's
> > not as bad as it sounds.
> 
> Pardon me for jumping in Bill, but would you happen to know if one of
> these options would result in a kernel that yum would be able to keep up
> to date for me like it does now???? or would the next yum kernel update
> be missing  "features" required for win4lin????


Yum isn't always yummy, is it?  Right now, I'd have to say that you
won't likely find that new kernel updates will include the mki-patch
that enables win4lin.  Netraverse folks are trying to fix that, and I
think they've got one kernel distro that will include their patches as
part of the core.

The only downside reality of Win4Lin is that you should always expect to
download kernel source, patch it and recompile it.  Always.   Is it
worth it? Oh, my.  Yes it is.  It's the first time in ten years I've
seen a truly stable Windows 98.  They're working on support for Windows
2000 as well.  I pretty much live in Adobe applications and until such
time as there is market density and demand for Adobe apps on Linux,
Win4Lin is the best way to go.

> 
> I'm not quite sure I want win4lin. But occasionally I consider the idea
> that if I find that I can insulate it from any possible internet access
> I may decide I want it. But the only way I would even think of doing this
> to fedora is if yum would be able to continue updating my kernel without
> having to repeat the process you just described for the OP...
> 
> I wouldn't object to having to do it again after updating from FC1 to FC2
> or from FC2 to FC3, but I'd need to know that yum would be able to auto
> install updated kernels within each core level the same way it does now.


I think you've got a good idea, though. I wonder how hard it would be to
persaude Netraverse to publish patches via yum that we'd just add to the
yum configuration.   

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040507/6afadbbb/attachment-0001.htm>