On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:35:21AM -0400, Matt Hyclak wrote:
> > Building broken kernel is WRONG. The kernel crashes and you know about
> > it but do not build the kernel correctly. The kernel does not follow 'as
> > close as possible' RHEL. This is wroong too as you may read in this
> > thread.
> >
>
> And how can you prove that building the kernel with a BETA toolchain will
> not result in a broken kernel as well? Maybe it fixes your problem - if
> that's the case, feel free to get the BETA toolchain and rebuild for
> yourself. Johnny has stated that he will continue to use the STABLE,
> RELEASED toolchain. End of discussion.
Johny know better tahan people from kernel team from RH what compiler is
better to use to build kernel. Probably. He is the God. Probably.
But still building broken kernel and do not follow your own rules - as
you wrote here - to be as close as possible to RHN.
So why do you have a rules? To use the against other. Probably.
> > So what are you doing guys? Rules that you are do not follow but talking
> > about following the rules? This is very very sad.
>
> What rule are you referring to? The goal is to make CentOS as *close* to
> binary compatible as possible, but there is also the goal to make CentOS
> self-hosting - something that RedHat thus far has not done.
>
> > If you know where the source is and you are unable to grab them, write
> > to me - simple script is able to put them to any FTP site. I'm using
> > CentOS and RHN too to give back to Red Hat at least a little.
>
> As do many CentOS developers and users. Would you like a cookie?
>
> Please end this discussion, it will fall on deaf ears until RedHat releases
> their toolchain as stable.
The tool is stable to build kernel. See their kernel.
--
Milan Kerslager
E-mail: milan.kerslager at pslib.cz
WWW: http://www.pslib.cz/ke/