Johnny Hughes wrote:
There is a centosplus kernel that has that errata ... it is version: kernel-2.6.9-34.107.plus.c4
Excellent. Is there a general way to map from upstream errata kernels to centosplus kernels? The (apparently??) previous convention of suffixing .106.unsupported to the upstream release number seemed to work well, and I don't want to either guess or take up mailing list bandwidth asking every time upstream revs.
However ... if the only thing you need from the centosplus kernel is the xfs ... you should use the normal (non-centosplus) kernel and the kernel-xfs-module that matches it from here:
http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/
or
Ooooh. That would be cool. I'll look into it.
Thanks again.
Dave Thompson UW-Madison
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 16:53 -0500, David Thompson wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
There is a centosplus kernel that has that errata ... it is version: kernel-2.6.9-34.107.plus.c4
Excellent. Is there a general way to map from upstream errata kernels to centosplus kernels? The (apparently??) previous convention of suffixing .106.unsupported to the upstream release number seemed to work well, and I don't want to either guess or take up mailing list bandwidth asking every time upstream revs.
It worked great .... except when this update came :)
2.6.9-34.106.unsupported ....
RH puts out 2.6.9-34.0.1
2.6.9-34.0.1.106.unsupported IS not an upgrade for 2.6.9-34.106.unsupported .... since 106 > 0
:)
For a more detail discussion ... see this post from last week :)
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-May/065273.html
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-
David Thompson -
Johnny Hughes