On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:05:13PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> > > as well as a tarball that contains fs/xfs/* which should be able to
> > > overlay any kernel.org kernel >= 2.4.21 (although the RPMs have had
> > > the most testing). Also, userspace rpms & tarballs.
> >
> > Does that mean that kernels >= 2.4.21 could be entirely built out of
> > the tree with XFS 1.3.3 (e.g. the RHEL3/FC1 kernel)? Probably not,
> > because there is a patched kernel for RHEL3, or am I missing
> > something?
>
> Argh, what was I thinking.... no, it won't work for 2.4.21, it
> would need to be laid over a kernel.org kernel that already
> has xfs in it, of course. Sorry, too many things in my brain
> lately. I'll get the README updated.
How big is the glue patch needed for kernels w/o xfs? I'd like to have
my kernel series with this glue patch, so I can offer more frequent
XFS updates with external builds.
> thanks for the hints on the packaging, too, I'll look into that
> (hopefully can still follow an upgrade path to your suggested
> naming...) but not for this release.
If you change names (in rpm terms) upgrade paths can easily be set up
with "Obsoletes: oldname <= oldversion".
(Don't skip the versioned part as it has happened too often that half
a year later you decide to reuse this name, and w/o a version the old
package will obsolete all future ones, too.)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAgNwbQBVS1GOamfERAi0sAJ9BVWMc18/lOBfRCUJ8lshnyGcIZQCaAlRM
81QwdkjmEFJtsxzBkpJuK8g=
=Nzjx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|