Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > Xen 3.2 is in the final stages of preparation. We (Xen > upstream) are > > planning to provide binary packages for Centos 5.1, amongs others. > > > > I've merged the patches and so on from xen-3.0.3-41.centos5.i386.rpm > > with a recent xen-unstable RC tip (16701:8922a1469284). > With a bit of > > effort I have managed to get a set of packages which appear > to be able > > to work at least in my simple `does this function at all' test. > > > > I'm mentioning it here so that you can have a look at what I've done > > and comment on it. We'll probably be making official upstream rpms > > very soon after the Xen 3.2 release, which we hope will be > early next > > week. Please send me feedback either here on-list or privately. > > > > Most of the useful patches from 3.0.3-41.centos5 have been > > incorporated upstream so I just deleted those from my srpm. > > > > There were also a few changes which I have just dropped. In > > particular, the RHEL5 package (and thus the Centos one too) is a > > bizarre frankenxen containing a forward port of the 3.0 > dom0 userland > > tools to the Xen 3.1 hypervisor. > > > > In my package I have included the hypervisor in the xen-*.rpm rather > > than making a kernel package too. This is more in line > with practice > > upstream; dom0 kernel compatibility between the 3.1 and 3.2 > > hypervisors is good and the new hypervisor seems to work for me with > > the Centos 5.1 2.6.18-53.el5xen kernel. > > > > You can find the actual files here: > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/xen-3.2-package-pr > > eviews/centos5.1/ > > > > These packages should not be used for production - they're previews > > and I may have made elementary packaging mistakes. Xen 3.2 is still > > unreleased and in need of more testing. > > I know I appreciate the effort you guys make to release these binaries > for the different platforms. > > If I had only 2 wishes they would be, 1) try to make the install mimic > the distro's Xen path layout a little better, 2) provide > 64-bit binaries... > > Other then those two little points I have found the binaries pretty > stable. Ok, I gave it a whirl, the minor paths issue I mentioned earlier seems to be fixed here, but the 'localtime' patch needs to be backported (or forwardported in this case) as HVM clocks still only report time in UTC. -Ross ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.