On 19/03/16 12:51, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 03/19/2016 04:12 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
Bump. It seems the kernel binary rpm doesn't match the availability of the sources for it. I can find no src.rpm matching the binary, and the CentOS git doesn't seem to include this version: https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!kernel-aarch64
You're looking in the wrong place. That's the git tree for the redhat provided rhel(sa) sources. We don't modify that tree.
You want the sig-altarch7-aarch64 branch from https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-altarch!kernel.git
Ah... My bad. In that repository, README.md says to look for the c7 branch - and there appears to be no c7 branch. Is the "sig-altarch7-aarch64" branch the correct one to use going forward?
Can you please provide the full src.rpm used to build the kernel-4.2.0-0.26.el7.1.aarch64 package?
http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/kernel-aarch64-4.2.0-0.26.el7.1.src.r...
Thanks, most appreciated.
I might also recommend a new thread rather than just a subject change for discussions like this. This message was very nearly lost to me as I've stopped watching the gigabyte board thread.
Apologies, fixed now.
Gordan
On 03/19/2016 08:02 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
On 19/03/16 12:51, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 03/19/2016 04:12 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
Bump. It seems the kernel binary rpm doesn't match the availability of the sources for it. I can find no src.rpm matching the binary, and the CentOS git doesn't seem to include this version: https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!kernel-aarch64
You're looking in the wrong place. That's the git tree for the redhat provided rhel(sa) sources. We don't modify that tree.
You want the sig-altarch7-aarch64 branch from https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-altarch!kernel.git
Ah... My bad. In that repository, README.md says to look for the c7 branch - and there appears to be no c7 branch. Is the "sig-altarch7-aarch64" branch the correct one to use going forward?
In most cases, yes. I take the default rhelsa sources and periodically roll patches submitted to the list (and CVE fixes as needed) into that branch. I need to write up the 'patches accepted' guidelines on the wiki, to formalize that process a bit.
Can you please provide the full src.rpm used to build the kernel-4.2.0-0.26.el7.1.aarch64 package?
http://people.centos.org/jperrin/srpms/kernel-aarch64-4.2.0-0.26.el7.1.src.r...
Thanks, most appreciated.
I might also recommend a new thread rather than just a subject change for discussions like this. This message was very nearly lost to me as I've stopped watching the gigabyte board thread.
Apologies, fixed now.
No worries at all. I tend to skim top-level subject lines to see if there's something interesting or that I need to respond to. Otherwise I'd be buried in email for the rest of my life. Downside is that I sometimes miss threaded messages I should otherwise watch. One of these days I'll attempt some improvements in my mail filtering.
On 19/03/16 13:43, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 03/19/2016 08:02 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
On 19/03/16 12:51, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 03/19/2016 04:12 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
Bump. It seems the kernel binary rpm doesn't match the availability of the sources for it. I can find no src.rpm matching the binary, and the CentOS git doesn't seem to include this version: https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!kernel-aarch64
You're looking in the wrong place. That's the git tree for the redhat provided rhel(sa) sources. We don't modify that tree.
You want the sig-altarch7-aarch64 branch from https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-altarch!kernel.git
Ah... My bad. In that repository, README.md says to look for the c7 branch - and there appears to be no c7 branch. Is the "sig-altarch7-aarch64" branch the correct one to use going forward?
In most cases, yes. I take the default rhelsa sources and periodically roll patches submitted to the list (and CVE fixes as needed) into that branch. I need to write up the 'patches accepted' guidelines on the wiki, to formalize that process a bit.
Speaking of CVEs, is a rebase to a more up to date LT kernel on the cards for the near future?
On 03/20/2016 03:15 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
Speaking of CVEs, is a rebase to a more up to date LT kernel on the cards for the near future?
We have to stick somewhat near the rhelsa kernel version for obvious reasons. If/when they rebase, I will as well.
-
Gordan Bobic -
Jim Perrin