Hi All
The short version:
1. What are the differences between Red Hat's kernel-source rpm and a
tarball of the same rev? They clearly apply some patches which are not in
the tarball.
2. Are there any downsides to using the tarball and not applying whatever
patches RH has added?
The long version:
I am in the process of patching my kernel to enable PPTP based VPN
masquerading. Since I just upgraded to 6.1, I figured my kernel was recent
enough (one stable rev behind) so I installed the kernel source rpm and
patched it.
Well, it turns out RH has applied some patches that make John Hardin's
patches get rejected. So on my laptop (6.1 too), I got the latest kernel
2.2.13 and patched it successfully, and built it. Oh, I was using the
excellent buildkernel script, and with the exception of having to manually
update the System.map link (can someone tell me how to make the correct
System.map be used regardless of the image you boot from?) everything
looks good.
But before I go and do this on my gateway, I want to make sure that I'm
not shooting myself in the foot doing it this way.
One of the things I have noticed that bothers me is that I have the 2.2.12
kernel-headers rpm installed which seems to haev things dependent on it.
Isn't it a bad idea to have the kernel built from a tarball, yet have
older headers lying around that other rpms might be using? I'm thinking
specifically of when building source rpms that may need them?
Any and all advise appreciated.
charles
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
