On 06/23/2014 02:48 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 06/12/2014 02:31 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
However, kernel-plus is also fine with me. Since this is KB's choice, if no one is against it, I suppose this is going to be the "final answer".
go go go ! where is my plus kernel ?
I have it -- well protected from prying eyes. :)
I have another question. Now that the "plus" is in the name, should we drop the ".plus" tag? For example, the current plus kernel is in the form of:
kernel-xxx.el6.centos.plus.x86_64
This will become:
kernel-plus-xxx.el7.centos.x86_64
One argument against omitting the .plus tag may become apparent here:
$ uname -r 3.10.0-123.el7.centos.x86_64
If/when there is, say, kernel-xen for c7, that will share the same 'uname' output as the plus kernel.
Thoughts?
That is a sticky one .. I supposed one could argue that the .plus does not need to be there since it is in the name, but more important than `uname -r` specifically is what is in /lib/modules/ for the directory structure. If the kernel-xen and the kernel-plus are also trying to use the same structure there, then that will obviously not work, so we will need something unique in that part of the string.
Note: you will have to roll in KB's certificate changes (now in git.centos.org) and we will have to build it on the server that can sign the secureboot stuff before we release it ... the 3154598aff24615c1f82d79ed299fb3d155d3282 revision is the GA kernel with the new certs and brandig mods. f355f5c33a16a2168bdad17ccc60db6b8198f6af is the revision for the ZeroDay update with the certs and mods.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes