I am repatching a stock standard 2.4.27 kernel dor use with suse 9.0 I am told that in order to logging not to break, I have to obtain the tiocgdev kernel patch. I have no idea where to find it Is anyone able to help? -- Johannes Cloete Tel: +27 82 224 8324 (Mobile) +27 12 804 9700 (Office Hours) -- Johannes Cloete Tel: +27 82 224 8324 (Mobile) +27 12 804 9700 (Office Hours)
On November 20, 2004 4:27 pm, Johannes Cloete wrote:
I am told that in order to logging not to break, I have to obtain the tiocgdev kernel patch.
Here you go. Depending on your kernel version, there might be 1 failed hunk which needs to be applied manually. Charles
On Sunday 21 November 2004 00:34, Charles Philip Chan wrote:
On November 20, 2004 4:27 pm, Johannes Cloete wrote:
I am told that in order to logging not to break, I have to obtain the tiocgdev kernel patch.
Here you go. Depending on your kernel version, there might be 1 failed hunk which needs to be applied manually.
Charles
Thank you very much for the patch. I had a look in the suse sources and found thousands ('literally') of patches. Do you think it is necessary to 1st apply them to standard kernel for suse to be functional? -- Johannes Cloete Tel: +27 82 224 8324 (Mobile) +27 12 804 9700 (Office Hours)
which distrib of suse is better? is 9.2 & 9.1 truly superior, faster and more stable than suse 9.0? does the 2.6.x kernel shipped with the later models outperform suse 9.0 that shipped with kernel 2.4.21? -- Johannes Cloete Tel: +27 82 224 8324 (Mobile) +27 12 804 9700 (Office Hours)
On Saturday 20 November 2004 05:56 pm, Johannes Cloete wrote:
which distrib of suse is better?
is 9.2 & 9.1 truly superior, faster and more stable than suse 9.0?
does the 2.6.x kernel shipped with the later models outperform suse 9.0 that shipped with kernel 2.4.21?
It's all in the eye of the beholder.... I've run all three and I wouldn't really attempt to answer your question. (but 8.1 was a bummer for me :-)
Johannes Cloete writes:
which distrib of suse is better? is 9.2 & 9.1 truly superior, faster and more stable than suse 9.0? does the 2.6.x kernel shipped with the later models outperform suse 9.0 that shipped with kernel 2.4.21?
I haven't taken the 9.2 plunge yet, so no comment there. However I am so far quite pleased with 9.1, updated with YOU (currently at 2.6.5-111 kernel) and running on several different machines. I also have a very minimalist SuSE 8.0 system which serves as the firewall box for my entire LAN, and it has the 2.4.18 kernel. While the 2.4.x kernels are lean and mean, I do think that the 2.6.x kernel requires more hardware to work its best (lots of memory, especially if you use KDE). -Ti -- Ti Kan http://www.amb.org/ti Vorsprung durch Technik
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:56:41 +0200, you wrote:
which distrib of suse is better?
is 9.2 & 9.1 truly superior, faster and more stable than suse 9.0?
does the 2.6.x kernel shipped with the later models outperform suse 9.0 that shipped with kernel 2.4.21?
Stability is in the eye of the beholder, as usual. IME, 9.0 drove me to Mandrake, which was ultimately a worse nightmare than 9.0. 9.1 and now 9.2 are quite good. OTOH, I keep reading messages from people who thought 9.0 was the best so far and 9.1/9.2 is causing them all kinds of problems. <shrug>. Try them and make your own decision. Mike- -- If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs... You may have a great career as a network administrator ahead! -- Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
On November 20, 2004 5:38 pm, Johannes Cloete wrote:
I had a look in the suse sources and found thousands ('literally') of patches.
Do you think it is necessary to 1st apply them to standard kernel for suse to be functional?
No. SuSE will actually work even without the tiocgdev patch, but you will not get any boot logging. tiocgdev is needed for blogd to work. Charles
participants (5)
-
Bruce Marshall -
Charles Philip Chan -
Johannes Cloete -
Michael W Cocke -
ti＠amb.org