Stock kernels
Samuel Flory
sflory at rackable.com
Tue Aug 19 16:29:24 UTC 2003
Maynard Kuona wrote:
>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.
>
You can't be serious this is an easy fix.
>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.
>
Downloading and building your own kernel isn't that hard. Making it
easy isn't in anyone's best interests. If you can't figure out how to
compile the kernel. Dare I say you shouldn't be compiling your own kernel.
>
>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.
>
>
Even worse problems occur when people compile their own kernel with
silly configs. With a compiled binary at least you get a vga console,
ext2 support, and the like.
--
Once you have their hardware. Never give it back.
(The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <sflory at rackable.com>
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list