Subject: Re: New Kernel RPMs
From: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
To: Theo Van Dinter <felicity@kluge.net>
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020124102814.K10233@kluge.net>
References: <35F87783B600D411A1430060943F469A589754@EXCHANGE> 
	<20020124102814.K10233@kluge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 24 Jan 2002 09:38:10 -0600
Message-Id: <1011886690.23153.14.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: O
Content-Length: 1319
Lines: 34

On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 09:28, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:24:25PM +0100, Matthijs van der Klip wrote:
> > Just to let you know: I just grabbed the xfs patches (20000 and up) from the
> > 2.4.9-12 SRPM and put them in the 2.4.9-21 source. I haven't tested it yet,
> > but
> > I have successfully built 2.4.9-21SGI_XFS_1.0.2 RPM's. So it seems very easy
> > indeed.
> 
> If we're talking about making a new XFS/RH kernel RPM, can we also look at
> upgrading the LVM code from 1.0.1-rc4 to 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 (released today --
> 1/24/2002 ...)
> 
> There've been a decent number of bug fixes that would be nice to get fixed. :)

I really think a new lvm needs a lot of soak time before we spin it
into a package. The 1.0.1 code has stack overflows with xfs, I have
no idea about the new code at all, I thought it was going to be a 2.0
release, or is that something different.

Steve


> 
> -- 
> Randomly Generated Tagline:
> I'm serious about thinking through all the possibilities before we
>  settle on anything.  All things have the advantages of their
>  disadvantages, and vice versa.
>               -- Larry Wall in <199709032332.QAA21669@wall.org>
-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@sgi.com