On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson <daniel@hozac.com> wrote:
> Edward Capriolo wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Roderick A. Anderson
>> <raanders@cyber-office.net> wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2010 02:49 PM, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/07/2010 01:14 PM, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/06/2010 08:25 PM, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>> The source RPMs are available from the repository,
>>>>> http://rpm.hozac.com/dhozac/centos/5/vserver/SRPMS/ and spec files etc
>>>>> from http://src.hozac.com/viewvc/rpms/ (requires IPv6).
>>>>
>>>> OK something new to get into. IPv6. I've been able to avoid it so far. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I am getting an error from your repo. PkgKey 44 doesn't exist?
>>>
>>> Duh!
>>>
>>> yum clean all
>>> yum clean metadata
>>>
>>>
>>> Rod
>>> --
>>>>
>>>> That ring a bell for you or anyone else. I'm sure Google will have some
>>>> input when I get to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rod
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So the challenge with redhat/centos is the way kernel patches are
>> backported. It is very intensive to applying the myriad backported
>> patches as well as the vserver patches and be able to deal with the
>> conflicts.
>
> It's not really that hard, just time-consuming to do for every single
> release. That is why I gave up and created a vanilla kernel instead.
> For RHEL though, your issue is more that it is based on 2.6.18, which
> would mean an ancient Linux-VServer patch, or, trying to backport a
> new patch to an ancient kernel, neither of which is really feasible.
>
>> For fc12 I took the approach of applying vserver patch first and then
>> removing anything that conflicted with it..
>
> Have you validated the correctness of that? Patches are quite often
> interdependent...
>
>> http://www.jointhegrid.com/fc12-vserver-repo/
>>
>> fc12 does not backport many patches (30 or so) only 2 conflicted. with
>> Cent/RHEL you are probably going to get thousands of conflicts. I
>> would use RPM to build and deploy the kernel but trying to match patch
>> for patch is impossible (IMHO)
>
> --
> Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
>
I think the two that conflicted were very tiny, and were security
extras. In any case, the kernel has been running on my laptop for
several months now, so at least it is reasonably stable.
Edward
Received on Sat Jul 10 02:02:36 2010