Stock kernels

[Maynard Kuona]

Not the binary kernel. I was referring to kernel source only, so that those
who felt so inclined could compile it themselves. We could then make use of
the spec file that Redhat uses to make its own kernel rpms, if they are
compatible. Like recently, the kernel.org kernels will not build because of
how Redhat split rpm into rpm and rpmbuild. So if you could provide stock
kernels, unsupported though, even for download, it would really be
appreciated. The thing is that if they build at Redhat, then there should be
less trouble building in the users' hands.

I think I should mention again that I was not intending for Redhat to ship a
stock kernel binary, as users might install this and end up with real big
problems.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris at redhat.com>
To: <rhl-beta-list at redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Stock kernels


> On 19 Aug 2003, Maynard Kuona wrote:
>
> >Is ther any chance RHL could include stock kernel rpms for the guys who
> >would like to run something different, or customize it as much as
> >possible.
> >
> >It doesn't have to be offered for installation, or it could be just the
> >source rpms, from which we could then compile and make binary packages.
> >redhat could also include their own spec with it so that it is less of a
> >hassle to compile and install. It could just be dropped into an 'extras'
> >folder where those who feel so inclined could install it from. It
> >shouldn't be too much to ask IMHO.
>
> Red Hat has a strong name in the community from providing a
> strong solid product to customers and users.  That is
> accomplished by taking many open source project's codebases and
> incorporating them into a unified and integrated distribution,
> and patching the source code of the various software packages to
> fix bugs that are found by developers, reported by users and
> customers, or via other means.  Leaving out bug fixes just for
> the sake of having a binary unpatched kernel or other software
> package is not conducive to producing the best software.
>
> Other patches include enhancements, modifications for
> standardization efforts such as LSB, FHS, etc. and some software
> requires modifications or changes to its build procedures in
> order to compile with perhaps a different version of a library,
> than what it was developed for by the upstream author.
>
> When you use Red Hat Linux, you are not using stock untested,
> unmodified source code built into binaries and thrown over the
> fence, rather you are using code that has been modified via
> patches for numerous good reasons, and that combines to form the
> robust end result.
>
> People are of course always encouraged to create their own
> customized packages which may contain newer versions of the
> software than that which is part of the distribution at any given
> time, or to create packages which contain stock unmodified source
> code with no patches.
>
> You may wish to create a repository of rpm packages which are
> 100% stock unmodified sources, and put them up for others to use
> as well.  There may be others whom would like this also, however
> it doesn't really fit directly into Red Hat Linux goals and
> mission.  That doesn't mean it can't exist by volunteers willing
> to contribute and maintain their own package sets though.
>
> More than likely someone out there is interested in maintaining
> such, and I wouldn't doubt if such packages exist already for the
> kernel, or something close to it.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
> OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
>
>
> --
> Rhl-beta-list mailing list
> Rhl-beta-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-beta-list
>