Stock kernels

[Samuel Flory]

Maynard Kuona wrote:

>Not the binary kernel. I was referring to kernel source only, so that those
>who felt so inclined could compile it themselves. We could then make use of
>the spec file that Redhat uses to make its own kernel rpms, if they are
>compatible. Like recently, the kernel.org kernels will not build because of
>how Redhat split rpm into rpm and rpmbuild. 
>

  You can't be serious this is an easy fix.

>So if you could provide stock
>kernels, unsupported though, even for download, it would really be
>appreciated. The thing is that if they build at Redhat, then there should be
>less trouble building in the users' hands.
>

  Downloading and building your own kernel isn't that hard.  Making it 
easy isn't in anyone's best interests.  If you can't figure out how to 
compile the kernel.  Dare I say you shouldn't be compiling your own kernel.

>
>I think I should mention again that I was not intending for Redhat to ship a
>stock kernel binary, as users might install this and end up with real big
>problems.
>  
>

  Even worse problems occur when people compile their own kernel with 
silly configs.  With a compiled binary at least you get a vga console, 
ext2 support, and the like.

-- 
Once you have their hardware. Never give it back.
(The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory at rackable.com>