I have the problem that I almost never throw anything away that can still be useful. In itself, not bad. Combined with the "World We Live In" (TM), a "Less Than Optimal Behavior" (SM).
I need some of the features in CentOSPlus kernels for my 586 (K6-III).
1) I don't mind doing it myself and contributing results, if that's what it takes. Only having LFS experience (rpm nu2me), I anticipate a "learning curve" and a minimal amount of hand holding. Since I keep abreast of the lists, know how to Google the list, have heavy development background and *light* and *ancient* admin (but for my little nook here), ... (you get it) hand-holding should be very little.
2) My target machine has a minimal (mostly) CentOS 4.3 kept up-to-date and plenty of HD. Also have a 2.2PR Athlon w/768M DR ram, plenty of hd, so cross-compile (I don't remember details from my LFS days) is reasonable.
3) I am already subscribed to the developer's list if that is needed (I think, don't recall if I saw anything from there).
4) DOWNSIDE (maybe more?) Karnbir might have to tolerate my occasional short outbursts of humor as they help extend the lifespan of various pieces of equipment in my little nook. I'll let that go someday when I have milked it for all I think it's worth. ;-)
5) Additional delay because I'm reading studiously trying to learn new/updated admin related stuff. It seems that since security became a concern, the *necessary* bloat to functions is unbelievable (I'd be afraid to read the estimates of % of budget devoted to security nation- wide).
6) OTOH (there's always one, eh?) if the walkers-on-water denizens of the list/project want to make one available, I can keep learning/configuring my nook and contribute somehow later on.
TIA
William L. Maltby wrote:
I have the problem that I almost never throw anything away that can still be useful. In itself, not bad. Combined with the "World We Live In" (TM), a "Less Than Optimal Behavior" (SM).
I need some of the features in CentOSPlus kernels for my 586 (K6-III).
I believe that the 686 kernel is compiled with the 586 or 486 instruction set but optimized for i686. (There is almost no benefit from using the few new i686 instructions, though a few people still moan about it.) A 586 kernel I believe would use the 586 instruction set and be optimized for an Intel Pentium 1. I'm not sure how much the K6-III would benefit from the Intel optimizations. The K6-III was a superior chip. (I really liked my 450, and you gotta love the 3 levels of cache.)
If I were you, I'd just use yum the prebuilt one.
-Steve
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:22 -0500, Steve wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote:
I have the problem that I almost never throw anything away that can still be useful. In itself, not bad. Combined with the "World We Live In" (TM), a "Less Than Optimal Behavior" (SM).
I need some of the features in CentOSPlus kernels for my 586 (K6-III).
I believe that the 686 kernel is compiled with the 586 or 486 instruction set but optimized for i686. (There is almost no benefit from using the few new i686 instructions, though a few people still moan about it.) A 586 kernel I believe would use the 586 instruction set and be optimized for an Intel Pentium 1. I'm not sure how much the K6-III would benefit from the Intel optimizations. The K6-III was a superior chip. (I really liked my 450, and you gotta love the 3 levels of cache.)
If I were you, I'd just use yum the prebuilt one.
Umm... I was led to believe that I might need a 586-specific one by the fact that the base system must provide one for installs to succeed, IIRC and RH made a point of saying they no longer support 586. Is that just install-time incompatibility and RH problem resolution support? If the kernel in Plus is suffixed with -686, what's that mean to me?
Thanks for taking the time, regardless.
-Steve
<snip sig stuff>
William L. Maltby wrote:
Umm... I was led to believe that I might need a 586-specific one by the fact that the base system must provide one for installs to succeed, IIRC and RH made a point of saying they no longer support 586.
586 not supported?
I just looked and there is an i586 kernel in the Centos 4.3 base repo, as well as the 4.3 centosplus repo. The plus kernel is dated May 28, 2006.
http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/4.3/centosplus/i386/RPMS/kernel-2.6.9-34.10...
-Steve
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:30 -0500, Steve wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote:
Umm... I was led to believe that I might need a 586-specific one by the fact that the base system must provide one for installs to succeed, IIRC and RH made a point of saying they no longer support 586.
586 not supported?
I just looked and there is an i586 kernel in the Centos 4.3 base repo, as well as the 4.3 centosplus repo. The plus kernel is dated May 28, 2006.
Yes, but that is done by the nice folks here as a favor to the community.
You must have been away when that hit the thread.
http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/4.3/centosplus/i386/RPMS/kernel-2.6.9-34.10...
<snip sig stuff>
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:30 -0500, Steve wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote:
Umm... I was led to believe that I might need a 586-specific one by the fact that the base system must provide one for installs to succeed, IIRC and RH made a point of saying they no longer support 586.
586 not supported?
I just looked and there is an i586 kernel in the Centos 4.3 base repo, as well as the 4.3 centosplus repo. The plus kernel is dated May 28, 2006.
http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/4.3/centosplus/i386/RPMS/kernel-2.6.9-34.10...
I didn't see that one! ... hmm Aha! I was doing a check update on my Athlon and forgot that it would *not* see a 586 version. Thanks!
-Steve
For the rest of my OP... Never Mind (Emily Latilla SNL)
WHOOPS! Time for Vacation. It's not my K^, it's my Pentium 200MHz I need it for. <smacks forehead> Shesh!
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:19 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:22 -0500, Steve wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote:
I have the problem that I almost never throw anything away that can still be useful. In itself, not bad. Combined with the "World We Live In" (TM), a "Less Than Optimal Behavior" (SM).
I need some of the features in CentOSPlus kernels for my 586 (K6-III).
I believe that the 686 kernel is compiled with the 586 or 486 instruction set but optimized for i686. (There is almost no benefit from using the few new i686 instructions, though a few people still moan about it.) A 586 kernel I believe would use the 586 instruction set and be optimized for an Intel Pentium 1. I'm not sure how much the K6-III would benefit from the Intel optimizations. The K6-III was a superior chip. (I really liked my 450, and you gotta love the 3 levels of cache.)
If I were you, I'd just use yum the prebuilt one.
Umm... I was led to believe that I might need a 586-specific one by the fact that the base system must provide one for installs to succeed, IIRC and RH made a point of saying they no longer support 586. Is that just install-time incompatibility and RH problem resolution support? If the kernel in Plus is suffixed with -686, what's that mean to me?
Thanks for taking the time, regardless.
-Steve
<snip sig stuff>
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Steve -
William L. Maltby