First message >:)

[Alejandro González Hernández - Imoq]

I think I got it this time! :P

Umm... I was kinda expecting kernel 2.6.0 here... oh, well, downloading
it right now ;) :)

Alex.

-- 
¡Sé libre, usa software libre!
Be free, use free software!
http://www.imoqland.com/

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Jesse Keating]

On Monday 21 July 2003 15:11, Jos Vos wrote:
>  I think I'm missing some essential information here... or was
> this
>  *meant* to be cryptic, Rik? ;-) 
Sounds like there will be a RHEL beta later this week.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE
http://geek.j2solutions.net
Mondo DevTeam (http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Bill Nottingham]

>  > Next release after this one, that's the intention.  The
> sooner 2.6.x
>  > is stable, the sooner we can do next release -- it could be a much
>  > shorter cycle than usual in order to incorporate the change.  We'll
>  > have to keep an eye on it.
>  
>  Does this 2.4 kernel have the latest patches by Herbert Xu to the 
>  backported 2.5 IPsec stack? 
The current kernel in Severn does not have the IPSEC patches.

Bill

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Chris Ricker wrote:

>  > The current kernel in Severn does not have the IPSEC patches.
>  
>  Are there plans to add them? 
Watch for the other public beta Red Hat is going to do this week.
I suspect that the kernel from that other public beta will just
be usable in Severn ...

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Matthias Saou]

Bill Nottingham wrote :

>  > You are correct, and this brings up another question... will
> the
>  > version number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has in the
>  > past, or will it be released as part of the newly-open schedule?
>  
>  The version number is currently slated to be '10'. That may change,
>  but I don't know of a reason why it would at the moment. 
Well, 10 is plain and expected, X is already taken, so I vote for 00001010
or even better, 0xA :-)

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Raw Hide 20030718 running Linux kernel 2.4.20-20.1.2013.nptl
Load : 0.61 0.55 0.46

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:)

[Bill Nottingham]

Féliciano Matias (feliciano.matias(a)free.fr) said: 
>  http://freshrpms.net/ provides Alsa rpm (version 0.9.4) :
>  http://freshrpms.net/docs/alsa/
>  
>  The OSS emulation of Alsa work great.
>  The "big picture" is sndconfig/kuduz/anaconda to switch to alsa. 
Bah, sed on /etc/modules.conf. Not hard. ;)

>  I use Alsa since RH 6.0 :-)
>  
>  But the true question is : if RedHat plan to use Alsa with Linux 2.6, i
>  don't need to fill a RFE in bugzilla. 
Yes, we plan to use ALSA with 2.6. Not before.

Bill

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Bill Nottingham]

Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp(a)pobox.com) said: 
>  > A nit to pick: as everyone should have learned from the last
> product
>  > cycle, the beta is 9.0.93, not 9.1.
>  
>  You are correct, and this brings up another question... will the version
>  number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has in the past, or
>  will it be released as part of the newly-open schedule? 
The version number is currently slated to be '10'. That may change,
but I don't know of a reason why it would at the moment.

Bill

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Jesse Keating]

On Monday 21 July 2003 13:30, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
>  You are correct, and this brings up another question... will the
>  version number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has in
>  the past, or will it be released as part of the newly-open schedule?
>
>  If the future version number (10 or X or 10.0 or 9.1 or whatever the
>  choices are) were made known, this would help out people at projects
>  like http://www.fedora.us, who have to think very carefully about the
>  naming scheme for their packages, so they can upgrade nicely while
>  still being compatible with Red Hat's. 
I've been told in the IRC channel that it will be released to the 
community when it is decided upon.  Release number/name are decided 
very late in the game.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE
http://geek.j2solutions.net
Mondo DevTeam (http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Michael K. Johnson]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:48:30AM -0600, Chris Ricker wrote:
>  On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  > The current kernel in Severn does not have the IPSEC patches.
>  
>  Are there plans to add them? 
Not for this release.

>  The release notes mention ipsec-tools as being included, even though
> it's
>  not. What are the plans there? Go with the freeswan tools instead since at
>  least they're still maintained? Or just omit IPsec for this next release? 
Tools may stay for folks playing with 2.6.x kernels; that decision is
completely separate from what's in the included kernel

michaelkjohnson

 "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
 Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
 http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Chris Ricker]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bill Nottingham wrote:

>  > > Next release after this one, that's the intention.  The
> sooner 2.6.x
>  > > is stable, the sooner we can do next release -- it could be a much
>  > > shorter cycle than usual in order to incorporate the change.  We'll
>  > > have to keep an eye on it.
>  > 
>  > Does this 2.4 kernel have the latest patches by Herbert Xu to the 
>  > backported 2.5 IPsec stack?
>  
>  The current kernel in Severn does not have the IPSEC patches. 
Are there plans to add them?

The release notes mention ipsec-tools as being included, even though it's
not. What are the plans there? Go with the freeswan tools instead since at
least they're still maintained? Or just omit IPsec for this next release?

later,
chris

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Alejandro González Hernández - Imoq]

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 09:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:

>  Given the schedule:
>    http://rhl.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
>  
>  we feel it's not really feasible that the 2.6 kernel will be completely
>  stable, usable, and supporting all the necessary features for upgrades,
>  etc. for us to ship it. 
Wow! Now you are giving dates? That's a first, hehe, thank you.

For what I can read about it:

"Schedule
Cambridge
      * July 21 2003 - Beta 1 release
      * August 8 2003 - Stop Ship Mode starts (only StopShip bug fixes
        after this point)
      * August 18 2003 - Beta 2 release
      * September 15 2003 - Beta 3 release
      * October 6 2003 - General Availability

Cambridge++
No dates set yet, but a driving goal or defining characteristic will be
the 2.6 Linux kernel -- unless the 2.6 Linux kernel takes too long to
arrive. That is, we'll shorten the schedule to accomodate an earlier
release of the 2.6 kernel, but not lengthen it to accomodate a later
release of the 2.6 kernel."

Should I assume that next beta/next version WILL have a 2.6.x kernel?

Alex.

-- 
¡Sé libre, usa software libre!
Be free, use free software!
http://www.imoqland.com/

[Chris Ricker]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bill Nottingham wrote:

>  Alejandro González Hernández - Imoq (imoq(a)imoqland.com) said: 
>  > I think I got it this time! :P
>  > 
>  > Umm... I was kinda expecting kernel 2.6.0 here... oh, well, downloading
>  > it right now ;) :)
>  
>  Given the schedule:
>    http://rhl.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
>  
>  we feel it's not really feasible that the 2.6 kernel will be completely
>  stable, usable, and supporting all the necessary features for upgrades,
>  etc. for us to ship it. 
If you want to test, though,

http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.5/

has kernel RPMs. Everything else you need, AFAIK, is already in the beta....

later,
chris

[Bill Nottingham]

Alejandro González Hernández - Imoq (imoq(a)imoqland.com) said: 
>  I think I got it this time! :P
>  
>  Umm... I was kinda expecting kernel 2.6.0 here... oh, well, downloading
>  it right now ;) :) 
Given the schedule:
  http://rhl.redhat.com/participate/schedule/

we feel it's not really feasible that the 2.6 kernel will be completely
stable, usable, and supporting all the necessary features for upgrades,
etc. for us to ship it.

Bill

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Michael K. Johnson]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:19:07AM -0500, Alejandro González Hernández - Imoq wrote:
>  Should I assume that next beta/next version WILL have a 2.6.x kernel?
Next release after this one, that's the intention.  The sooner 2.6.x
is stable, the sooner we can do next release -- it could be a much
shorter cycle than usual in order to incorporate the change.  We'll
have to keep an eye on it.

michaelkjohnson

 "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
 Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
 http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Edward C. Bailey]

> >>>> "Alejandro" == Alejandro González Hernández
> <- Imoq <imoq(a)imoqland.com&gt;&gt; writes: 
Alejandro> Wow! Now you are giving dates? That's a first, hehe, thank you.

This is not the old RHL development model, as I'm sure you'll see as you
continue reading through the project website... :-)

                            Ed
-- 
Ed Bailey        Red Hat, Inc.          http://www.redhat.com/

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Michael K. Johnson wrote:

>  As I've since mentioned in another post, Severn won't have
> ipsec
>  patches added to the kernel. 
Unfortunately, but alas. Everybody should just try and get things
together for the next release. Is contrib frozen for 9.1 as well?
 
>  One of our objectives (see
>  http://rhl.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
>  for our current statement of our objectives -- we will probably refine
>  it as we better express the shared expectations we have) is to generally
>  push toward putting in changes upstream, rather than making Red Hat
>  Linux a place to carry forks: 
I can understand that. AFAIK, there are talks for Ted to step down for
someone else to take over ISC dhcp maintanance. I'll get in contact 
with those people.

Also Micahel Richardsen corrected me on the dhcp patches. There are
generic patches for the "require keyword" and for sending options
that are larger then 256 bytes, so they should benefit everyone, not
just the ipsec people.

Paul

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[joe]

Florian Hines wrote:

> Throw me in as a vote for 0xA lol.
>   
>  
Yes, RH0xA - very h@x0rish....

I like it

Joe

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Havoc Pennington]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:30:11PM -0400, Jeremy Portzer wrote: 
>  You are correct, and this brings up another question... will the
> version
>  number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has in the past, or
>  will it be released as part of the newly-open schedule? 
I don't think we've decided this specifically.

We basically announced the numbering policy with 9 anyway.
"Least complicated possible numbering scheme"

Havoc

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Michael K. Johnson]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:21:54PM +0200, Paul Wouters wrote:
>  Does this 2.4 kernel have the latest patches by Herbert Xu to the 
>  backported 2.5 IPsec stack? His patches add Opportunistic Encryption
>  support to af_key. It would be a good thing if 9.1's kernel would
>  support this. His code appeared in Dave Miller's 2.4 backport: 
As I've since mentioned in another post, Severn won't have ipsec
patches added to the kernel.

>  Another question I have is regarding DHCP. Michael Richardsen wrote
>  a patch for ISC's dhcpd that adds Opportunistic Encryption support
>  in dhcpd and dhclient. However, ISC dhcp isn't really well maintained
>  by Ted anymore, and the patches have been lying in the queue without
>  getting applied. Who should I talk to about getting this patch into
>  the RedHat package for ISC dhcp? This patch adds sending and receiving
>  oe-gateway and oe-key, which is used by the WaveSEC project to 
>  automaticly build IPsec tunnels and tunnel the default route through this
>  as a way of real 802.11x security, insted of the various incarnations of 
>  WEP or EAP. 
One of our objectives (see
http://rhl.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
for our current statement of our objectives -- we will probably refine
it as we better express the shared expectations we have) is to generally
push toward putting in changes upstream, rather than making Red Hat
Linux a place to carry forks:

 o  Do as much of the development work as possible directly in the
    upstream packages. This includes errata; our default policy will be
    to upgrade to new versions for security as well as for bugfix and
    new feature update releases of packages.

We're making this a stronger goal than in the past.  It will take a while
to get from where we are now to something a bit more consistent with that
goal, but we'd like there to be an upstream project to pull from for
ongoing changes.  Does that make sense?

michaelkjohnson

 "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
 Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
 http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Bill Rhodes]

I'm inclined to agree.  It'd be pretty clever.  Although the PHB types
will get mighty confused when everyone else is up near version 15 or 16
and RHL is "only just" coming out with "version 10".

Of course RH could really get a jump on the competition and use octal.

-B

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Florian  Hines wrote:

>  Throw me in as a vote for 0xA lol.

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 13:20, Florian Hines wrote:
>  Throw me in as a vote for 0xA lol.
>   
I like the implications of numbering it X

b/c then you'd get XI, XII, XII, XIV, XV, etc

and then it makes me feel like I'm seeing the date in roman numerals at
the end of a movie.

-sv

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Florian Hines]

Throw me in as a vote for 0xA lol.

#-----Original Message-----
#From: rhl-beta-list-admin(a)redhat.com 
#[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen Smoogen
#Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:08 PM
#To: rhl-beta-list(a)redhat.com
#Subject: Re: Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next 
#RHL version.)
#
#
#I second and move it to a vote.
#
#My vote is 00001010.
#
#
#On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:09, Matthias Saou wrote:
#> Bill Nottingham wrote :
#> 
#> > > You are correct, and this brings up another question... will the 
#> > > version number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has 
#> > > in the past, or will it be released as part of the newly-open 
#> > > schedule?
#> > 
#> > The version number is currently slated to be '10'. That 
#may change, 
#> > but I don't know of a reason why it would at the moment.
#> 
#> Well, 10 is plain and expected, X is already taken, so I vote for 
#> 00001010 or even better, 0xA :-)
#> 
#> Matthias
#-- 
#Stephen John Smoogen		smoogen(a)lanl.gov
#Los Alamos National Labrador  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 4-0645 
#(note new #) Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S  Los Alamos, NM 87545
#-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --
#
#
#--
#Rhl-beta-list mailing list
#Rhl-beta-list(a)redhat.com 
#http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-#beta-list
#

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Stephen Smoogen]

I second and move it to a vote.

My vote is 00001010.


On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:09, Matthias Saou wrote:
>  Bill Nottingham wrote :
>  
>  > > You are correct, and this brings up another question... will the
>  > > version number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has in the
>  > > past, or will it be released as part of the newly-open schedule?
>  > 
>  > The version number is currently slated to be '10'. That may change,
>  > but I don't know of a reason why it would at the moment.
>  
>  Well, 10 is plain and expected, X is already taken, so I vote for 00001010
>  or even better, 0xA :-)
>  
>  Matthias 
-- 
Stephen John Smoogen		smoogen(a)lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Labrador  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 4-0645 (note new #)
Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.

[James Ralston]

On 2003-07-21 at 15:44:44-0700 Rick Johnson <rjohnson(a)medata.com&gt; wrote:
>  I'd drool over the next RHEL beta though, since it would come at
> an
>  ideal time for us to migrate our production from RHL 7.1-9 to RHEL
>  3.x (or whatever it's numbered).  I've held off because I felt that
>  2.1 wasn't leading edge enough being based on 7.2 
We're in the exact same situation.  I don't want to move *all* of my
servers from RHL to RHEL, but I want to move a fair number of them,
and RHEL 2.1 is just too old.

I think a nice new spiffy RHEL (which will be supported by most
third-party vendors) released in the fall will get a fair number of
people to migrate from RHL 7.x/8.0 to RHEL, and should give a nice
boost to Red Hat's bottom line.

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:)

[Pekka Pietikäinen]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:20:34AM +0200, Fliciano Matias wrote:
>  http://freshrpms.net/ provides Alsa rpm (version 0.9.4) :
>  http://freshrpms.net/docs/alsa/
>  But the true question is : if RedHat plan to use Alsa with Linux 2.6, i
>  don't need to fill a RFE in bugzilla. 
Well, from what I've understood OSS
is going to be deprecated (but still
exist) in 2.6 so it's not like there will be much of a choice :-)

Btw., in case someone wants to use ALSA in Cambridge, you need a few minor 
tweaks, drivers/serialmidi.c needs:

--- ./drivers/serialmidi.c~     2003-05-08 18:53:43.000000000 +0300
+++ ./drivers/serialmidi.c      2003-05-08 18:53:43.000000000 +0300
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
                retval = -EIO;
                goto __end;
        }
-       if (tty->count > 1) {
+       if (atomic_read(&tty->count) > 1) {
                snd_printk(KERN_ERR "tty %s is already used", serial->sdev);
                retval = -EBUSY;
                goto __end;

to work with the recent Red Hat kernels and exec-shield breaks quite a 
few apps that use alsa-lib (it uses a gcc extension that puts code on the 
stack, which is a no-no). Solutions are chstk -e your alsa apps, disable 
exec-shield or fix alsa-lib. 

Other than that, it works just fine. 

-- 
Pekka Pietikainen

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:)

[Alan Cox]

>  I think Red Hat (and any sensible distribution, for that matter)
> will
>  use ALSA on any 2.6-based release, because that's just what makes sense.
>  However, i don't seem to recall that Severn is based on 2.6. 
It may even be a "both" case. Some drivers only exist in one or the other.
Its *way* to early to call

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:)

[Florin Andrei]

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 16:20, Féliciano Matias wrote:

>  But the true question is : if RedHat plan to use Alsa with Linux 2.6,
> i
>  don't need to fill a RFE in bugzilla. 
Severn is one thing, 2.6 is another.

I think Red Hat (and any sensible distribution, for that matter) will
use ALSA on any 2.6-based release, because that's just what makes sense.
However, i don't seem to recall that Severn is based on 2.6.

Since RH, for the moment, seems to have the focus somewhere else, don't
expect them to support ALSA with 2.4
However, if someone else starts maintaining ALSA packages for Severn,
that might solve your problem.

I'm pretty sure Freshrpms will start providing ALSA packages for the
next RH version once it's "officially" out.

-- 
Florin Andrei

"Never send a human to do a machine's job." - Agent Smith

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:)

[Féliciano Matias]

Le mar 22/07/2003 à 00:55, Alan Cox a écrit :
>  > Perhaps it's time to push Alsa in Severn. OSS still be used
> in RHL 11
>  > with kernel 2.6 or have you planed to use Alsa with Linux 2.6.
>  
>  If you want to spin a set of alsa add on packages that sounds precisely
>  the kind of stuff we want to see happen.
>   
http://freshrpms.net/ provides Alsa rpm (version 0.9.4) :
http://freshrpms.net/docs/alsa/

The OSS emulation of Alsa work great.
The "big picture" is sndconfig/kuduz/anaconda to switch to alsa.

I use Alsa since RH 6.0 :-)

But the true question is : if RedHat plan to use Alsa with Linux 2.6, i
don't need to fill a RFE in bugzilla.

>  
>  --
>  Rhl-beta-list mailing list
>  Rhl-beta-list(a)redhat.com
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-beta-list 
-- 
Féliciano Matias <feliciano.matias(a)free.fr&gt;

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:)

[Alan Cox]

>  Perhaps it's time to push Alsa in Severn. OSS still be used in
> RHL 11
>  with kernel 2.6 or have you planed to use Alsa with Linux 2.6. 
If you want to spin a set of alsa add on packages that sounds precisely
the kind of stuff we want to see happen.

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Rick Johnson]

On 7/21/2003 3:02 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

>  On Monday 21 July 2003 15:11, Jos Vos wrote:
>  
> >I think I'm missing some essential information here... or was this
> >*meant* to be cryptic, Rik? ;-)
>  
>  
>  Sounds like there will be a RHEL beta later this week.
>   
Or possibly Cambridge++?

http://rhl.redhat.com/participate/schedule/

I'd drool over the next RHEL beta though, since it would come at an ideal 
time for us to migrate our production from RHL 7.1-9 to RHEL 3.x (or 
whatever it's numbered). I've held off because I felt that 2.1 wasn't 
leading edge enough being based on 7.2

-Rick

-- 
Rick Johnson, RHCE #807302311706007 - rjohnson(a)medata.com
Linux/Network Administrator - Medata, Inc.
PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/rjohnson.asc

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Féliciano Matias]

Sorry for my poor English.
I currently downloading Severn.

Le lun 21/07/2003 à 19:04, Michael K. Johnson a écrit :
>  On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:19:07AM -0500, Alejandro González
> Hernández - Imoq wrote:
>  > Should I assume that next beta/next version WILL have a 2.6.x kernel?
>  
>  Next release after this one, that's the intention.  The sooner 2.6.x
>  is stable, the sooner we can do next release -- it could be a much
>  shorter cycle than usual in order to incorporate the change.  We'll
>  have to keep an eye on it.
>   
Perhaps it's time to push Alsa in Severn. OSS still be used in RHL 11
with kernel 2.6 or have you planed to use Alsa with Linux 2.6.

>  michaelkjohnson
>  
>   "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
>   Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
>   http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/ 
-- 
Féliciano Matias <feliciano.matias(a)free.fr&gt;

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Jos Vos]

>  Watch for the other public beta Red Hat is going to do this week.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  I suspect that the kernel from that other public beta will just
>  be usable in Severn ... 
I think I'm missing some essential information here... or was this
*meant* to be cryptic, Rik? ;-)

-- 
--    Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl&gt;
--    X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: [phone]
--    Amsterdam, The Netherlands        |     Fax: [phone]

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Bill Nottingham]

Chris Ricker (kaboom(a)gatech.edu) said: 
>  The release notes mention ipsec-tools as being included, even though
> it's
>  not. 
It was removed (due to lack of kernel support) after the release
notes froze.

Bill

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[Jeremy Portzer]

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 16:07, William Hooper wrote:
>  Paul Wouters said:
>  > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
>  >
>  >> As I've since mentioned in another post, Severn won't have ipsec
>  >> patches added to the kernel.
>  >
>  > Unfortunately, but alas. Everybody should just try and get things
>  > together for the next release. Is contrib frozen for 9.1 as well?
>  
>  A nit to pick: as everyone should have learned from the last product
>  cycle, the beta is 9.0.93, not 9.1. 
You are correct, and this brings up another question... will the version
number of the next Red Hat Linux remain secret as it has in the past, or
will it be released as part of the newly-open schedule?

If the future version number (10 or X or 10.0 or 9.1 or whatever the
choices are) were made known, this would help out people at projects
like http://www.fedora.us, who have to think very carefully about the
naming scheme for their packages, so they can upgrade nicely while still
being compatible with Red Hat's.

--Jeremy

-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer       jeremyp(a)pobox.com       trilug.org/~jeremy     |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F  E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/

Version Numbering (Was: Re: Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version.)

[William Hooper]

Paul Wouters said:
>  On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
>
> > As I've since mentioned in another post, Severn won't have ipsec
> > patches added to the kernel.
>
>  Unfortunately, but alas. Everybody should just try and get things
>  together for the next release. Is contrib frozen for 9.1 as well? 
A nit to pick: as everyone should have learned from the last product
cycle, the beta is 9.0.93, not 9.1.

-- 
William Hooper

Kernel 2.6.x in next RHL version. (Was: Re: First message >:) ).

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Michael K. Johnson wrote:

>  Next release after this one, that's the intention.  The sooner
> 2.6.x
>  is stable, the sooner we can do next release -- it could be a much
>  shorter cycle than usual in order to incorporate the change.  We'll
>  have to keep an eye on it. 
Does this 2.4 kernel have the latest patches by Herbert Xu to the 
backported 2.5 IPsec stack? His patches add Opportunistic Encryption
support to af_key. It would be a good thing if 9.1's kernel would
support this. His code appeared in Dave Miller's 2.4 backport:

http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/debian/kernel/ipsec/ipsec-2.4.21-2003...

or

bk://kernel.bkbits.net/davem/ipsec-2.4
                                                                                          
                                                   

Another question I have is regarding DHCP. Michael Richardsen wrote
a patch for ISC's dhcpd that adds Opportunistic Encryption support
in dhcpd and dhclient. However, ISC dhcp isn't really well maintained
by Ted anymore, and the patches have been lying in the queue without
getting applied. Who should I talk to about getting this patch into
the RedHat package for ISC dhcp? This patch adds sending and receiving
oe-gateway and oe-key, which is used by the WaveSEC project to 
automaticly build IPsec tunnels and tunnel the default route through this
as a way of real 802.11x security, insted of the various incarnations of 
WEP or EAP.

Thanks,

Paul