> Do the kernel maintainers know that they have to update the patch with every new kernel release?
I assume yes, but I'm still attempting to patch UFS 2.0 into the Feisty LIveCD/USB kernel because Feisty contains bits and pieces of UnionFS 1.3, which is incorrect for the 2.6.20 kernel. I don't know if these bits are "active" or simply "vestigial." This is, allegedly, the correct UnionFS patch for a 2.6.20 kernel: ftp://ftp.filesystems.org/pub/unionfs/unionfs-2.x/linux-2.6.20-u1.diff.gz I downloaded linux-source-2.6.20_2.6.20.orig and linux- source-2.6.20_2.6.20. (Forgive my Ubuntu newbishness--does anyone have a link to a wiki explaining the Ubuntu kernel/patch file naming conventions--I find all the seemingly redundant kernel source file packages that pop up in a Synaptic search to be very confusing.) Ideally, I'd like to find the patches to take the Ubuntu kernel all the way back to a vanilla kernel (Ubuntu + Debian diffs?) I have not yet applied the -16.28.diff patch but decided to work, initially, with the original Ubuntu 2.6.20 source. I removed the "config UNION_FS" section from the bottom of /usr/src/linux/ubuntu/Kconfig and applied the UnionFS patch from above. It reported that some of the UnionFS patches were already applied to the Ubuntu kernel source and I answered "N" to not reapply those sections. I built the .deb packages and successfully installed and booted the new kernel with UnionFS 2.0 on my development machine. I have not yet had time to install the new kernel on the Feisty LiveCD/USB system and I have no idea if UnionFS 2,0 is even working. I may soon find that the UnionFS scripts in the Feisty LiveCD (scripted for UnionFS 1.3?) don't even work with UnionFS 2.0, regardless. -Cal -- feisty 20070210/herd5 persistent mode doesn't work https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/84591 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
