[CentOS] Is the unsupported kernel considered stable-ish?
craigwhite at azapple.com
Fri Mar 24 01:34:41 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 12:57 -0800, Troy Engel wrote:
> I have a need to use the unsupported kernel for one feature only
> (AFP/Appletalk support). Never having had to use it before, I'm unsure
> of what's all in it other than reading it's config file.
> From those that do use it -- is it considered stable enough to use in
> lightweight production? I'm debating the use of it versus wasting my
> time rebuilding the normal kernel with AFP enabled. Seeing as how this
> is an underpowered machine (Duron 900/512mb), using a prebuilt would be
presuming you are talking about CentOS-3...yes, install the kernel
unsupported. Not a big deal...upstream didn't want to support the
modules themselves so they separated them so you knew up front what the
You don't need the appletalk module to do afp over tcp...I tend to use
it on RHEL 3 systems where there's OS-9 Macintoshes. At home, I am using
CentOS-4 and upstream never did supply a kernel-unsupported so the
choices there are either to use centos-plus kernel or to build the
module yourself (not too hard)
> ps: why oh why did RH decide to disable this? a simple upgrade of a RH9
> machine now turns ugly. :-/ Do they think nobody uses Appletalk anymore?
OS 9 is pretty much dead. You shouldn't need the appletalk kernel module
with OS X systems.
as for turning an upgrade ugly...I think you are making a mountain out
of a molehill...if that's all you got to bitch about - you should be
very happy when you see how easy it is...
yum install kernel-unsupported # Uni-processor
yum install kernel-smp-unsupported # SMP
CentOS-4 # something like this should work
yum enablerepo=centosplus install \
I actually considered not responding because of the whining tone of your
email. I hope that you are downloading the 2.0.3 netatalk source and
compiling it yourself.
More information about the CentOS