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?