[CentOS] newbie kernel question

[Bogdan Nicolescu]

--- Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 12:04 -0700, Bogdan Nicolescu
> wrote:
> 
> > What is hard to understand is if I take the same
> EXACT
> > kernel Centos take, which I assume is available,
> and I
> > compile everything Centos compiles in, except I
> > compile some hardware in the kernel rather than
> > modularize it (as Centos does), how exactly is
> that
> > going to break functionality?  How exactly is
> removing
> > ext2 (if it is included in Centos default
> compilation)
> > from the kernel is going to break Centos if I
> don't
> > ever use ext2?
> > 
> 
> I told you where to get the kernels and how to
> compile it in a different
> post ...
> 
> Look in the SRPMS directory in the os or update
> trees for the latest
> update set, or in http://vault.centos.org/ for older
> versions.
> 
> Every kernel we have released has it's SRPM there.
> 
> I also pointed you to the release notes ... search
> for "kernel source":
> 
>

Johny,

In case you didn't have the patience to read my entire
previous post here is the part you forget to quote:

"
.
.
.
ps...  At this point in the discussion it is not about
how to compile or why/why-not compile the kernel
anymore.  The how question is going to be solved.  If
you don't want to have a rational conversation about a
feature of any source-base package you don't have to
scream, all you have to say "It is the way it is,
because Centos says so, and if you don't like it,
don't use it."

If this is/was the wrong place to have this
conversation, my apologies.
.
.
."

Thank you for all the help, and have a really nice
day.

ps.  You still didn't answer my question about how not
compiling ext2 into the kernel brakes everything.
Don't worry, it was a rhethorical question.