Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3217 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] SuSE 9.1? (With a 2.6 kernel?)
  • From: "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:26:25 -0500
  • Message-id: <200403020926.35262.hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 02 March 2004 08:30 am, David Krider wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 20:56, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
> I've built a few kernels over the years, and I've come to the conclusion
> that I, personally, would rather wait for new kernels to show up as the
> default in new distributions. While I'm comfortable putting my own
> kernel into place beside my other(s), what bugs me about using a 2.6
> kernel these days is that no one seems to use the garden-variety
> sources. Everyone seems to add this or that patch.

Well, I have a hard time taking my own advice. See below.

> In addition, while researching how to fix the recent 192 kernel's
> breakage of VMware, I accidently ran across a post on (I
> think) that talked about getting VMware (and the binary Nvidia driver)
> working under 2.6. That convinced me that the Linux world in general
> isn't ready for this, especially not me. Shoot, it's bad enough keeping
> VMware and the Nvidia driver working on production kernels shipped by
> one of the "Big 3!"

I'm sorry. The whole notion of VMware seems somehow perverse to me. I guess
it works for people, but I expect it would be more problem than solution.
The face that people have two OS's running on the same chip at the same time
amazes me orders of magnitude more than the KDE running on XP.

> dk
> P.S. "Big 3" refers to Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian, in my mind. But Gentoo
> keeps making strides.

It really is vertigo inducing to observe the rate of change in Open Source.
I'm not really joking when I say released software is obsolete. The stuff at seems that way. They always have the features I really want
in the cooker, rather than on the plate.

> If they'd just make a binary reference platform
> for each (popular) optimization level so that people wouldn't have to
> recompile the whole thing if they didn't want to, I think they'd garner
> a lot more attention.

I'm not really sure that's their goal. And perhaps that's good.

All philosophical musings asside, I have been at this all night. I've got
something built, and it only took one reconfigure to get there. I haven't
booted it, for a couple reasons. The make output is telling me it's looking
for an unknown symbol. I suspect that is a bad thing. Another reason is
because I really don't know what the heck I have.

I got two file from the Kernelmeister:
inux-2.6.3.SUSE.tar.bz2 and suse-2.6.3-0.bz2
The unpack as the full body of the Linux Kernel source at some point in time,
and what appears to be an 18 Meg patch file. compressed down to 2.9 Meg mind
you. I started to apply that patch, and I got this:

Tue Mar 02 09:09:19:> cd linux-2.6.3.SUSE/
Tue Mar 02 09:09:28:> patch -i ../suse-2.6.3-0
patching file lirc_it87
patching file scsi-changer.txt
patching file MAINTAINERS
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]

That suggests that the patch has already been applied. Or that the patch is
not a straight diff between the starting point, and the SuSEfied version. I
believe I can throw a switch and force all the patches in the patch file to
be applied. That doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

Has anybody figured out what the heck he intends others to do with these?

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


< Previous Next >