Dave - any chance you'd put together an F15 2.6.41 based on 3.1?
gene
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Genes MailLists lists@sapience.com wrote:
Dave - any chance you'd put together an F15 2.6.41 based on 3.1?
I don't think we're going to move F15 to 3.1 until it has some vetting on F16/rawhide first. Particularly when it's only in -rc3 at the moment.
josh
On 08/23/2011 01:28 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Genes MailListslists@sapience.com wrote:
Dave - any chance you'd put together an F15 2.6.41 based on 3.1?
I don't think we're going to move F15 to 3.1 until it has some vetting on F16/rawhide first. Particularly when it's only in -rc3 at the moment.
Out of curiosity what's preventing us from using 3.x. naming of kernels on F15?
Or to rephrase it if I install 3.x kernels from koji on an F15 host what breaks ( or is expected to break )?
JBG
2011/8/23 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com:
On 08/23/2011 01:28 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Genes MailListslists@sapience.com wrote:
Dave - any chance you'd put together an F15 2.6.41 based on 3.1?
I don't think we're going to move F15 to 3.1 until it has some vetting on F16/rawhide first. Particularly when it's only in -rc3 at the moment.
Out of curiosity what's preventing us from using 3.x. naming of kernels on F15?
I asked the same question some time ago
W dniu 30 czerwca 2011 20:58 użytkownik Dave Jones davej@redhat.com napisał:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:50:17PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
I ask out of curiosity - why 2.6.40? Is it a big problem to run 3.0 on F15?
A lot of broken software is assuming version numbers are 2.6.x. We could push a load of userspace packages to fix it, but that's just the stuff we control. 3rd party add-ons would break for no good reason.
This deviates from what upstream calls it, but it's just a number, and not breaking existing code in an update is more important here. For f16 of course, we'll make the 3.0 transition, because moving to a new release has differing expectations, and by the time it ships, hopefully everything that cares will be fixed.
Or to rephrase it if I install 3.x kernels from koji on an F15 host what breaks ( or is expected to break )?
JBG _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
On 08/23/2011 09:44 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Or to rephrase it if I install 3.x kernels from koji on an F15 host what breaks ( or is expected to break )?
Since stable uses 3.1.x and not 3.1 there's a shot that part may work ... I have run 3.0.x on 15 and it runs the same as 2.6.40 for me.
Perhaps try it and see what happens ... :-)
Does anyone know if any user space tools need updating on F15 for 3.1?
I checked the obvious ones (device-mapper, mdadm, procps, module-init-tools) ...
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 13:32 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Or to rephrase it if I install 3.x kernels from koji on an F15 host what breaks ( or is expected to break )?
A related anecdote: I'm currently running a (Rawhide derived, locally rebuilt) v3.0.x kernel package on F14 (this is a laptop with a rather boring setup). To get that package installed I also backported (ie, rebuilt locally) mdadm-3.2.1-5 and module-init-tools-3.16-2. No obvious breakage, at least not yet...
But the obvious disclaimer for stuff like this is: if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces.
Paul Bolle
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Genes MailLists -
Josh Boyer -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Michał Piotrowski -
Paul Bolle