[CentOS-devel] Too many kernels?
Axel Thimm
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.netThu Jul 3 14:32:28 UTC 2008
- Previous message: [CentOS-devel] expect x86_64 dependecy
- Next message: [CentOS-devel] Too many kernels?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi, currently ATrpms builds kmdls for the following RHEL5/CentOS5 kernels (actually for CentOS it also builds plus for plus kernels, but let's keep the discussion simple): el5/2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-92.1.1.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-92.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.1.21.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.1.19.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.1.13.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.1.6.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-53.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.14.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.10.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.8.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.6.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.4.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.3.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.1.1.el5 \ el5/2.6.18-8.el5 \ Similar for RHEL4/3. This slows down kmdl updates as say for a new nvidia driver one need to build kmdls for all these kernels in all flavours/archs etc. I start to think whether these kernels are indeed being all used to the extend of justifying full kmdl support. Maybe it would make sense to keep the full last series (2.6.18-92* above) and the highest one from the series before (2.6.18-53.1.21.el5 and 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5). Or is there any other idea? What are Red Hat's, CentOS' policies wrt support of kernels? ATrpms should probably just copy that policy and drop kernel support once the respective upstream support drops it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
- Previous message: [CentOS-devel] expect x86_64 dependecy
- Next message: [CentOS-devel] Too many kernels?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list