On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> > Linux XFS is _not_ based on RH's distro, that's just one convenient way
> > that we package it for the masses. :) XFS development has always been
> > based on Linus' tree.
> >
> > Red Hat RPMs are just a "fun" (?!) side project for Linux XFS.
>
> Aiiee... OK, lemme rephrase the question, your honour: if I would like to
> set up an XFS server, which part should I go with?
Depends on what you are installing. RedHat works with the -ac tree but
most other distributions work with vanilla trees as a starting point.
The linus tree in general is the starting point for most distributions
kernel. If you make a patch for that it becomes obviously easier to let
other distros use the XFS patches. Let's just say that it makes the
sharing easier.
> As it is, won't most people use the "RH XFS" version, ie. install from the
> ISOs?
They will, but there are also a lot of people out there like me that
rather have a linus tree with XFS on top. I can see on lkml if a kernel
has specific problems and that I can expect them too. If I then look at
what the redhat kernel looks like, I don't know what problems are related
to which of the 240 patches.
It's probably more about personal prefence in the end, and if it works?
Great!
Blah
Seth
|