Karanbir Singh wrote: > John Summerfield wrote: >> Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> John Summerfield wrote: >>>> One C5 kernel is 41 Mbytes, the other 16. In contrast, the other >>>> kernels are 37 Mbytes. >>> >>> http://bugs.centos.org/ > > You seem to forget often that this list isnt a user support list or a > general-I-have-a-concern list. If you have an issue that might be a > concern put it in the bugtracker. if you want to talk about stuff, take > it to the CentOS list. I think it's better to found out whether a bug exists before reporting one. Do you disagree? I also think that, if a bug exists, it's better to try to find out where it is. Do you disagree? Later discussion shows there is no problem in the kernel, where I thought there was one. If a bug exists, it's in yum reporting size wrongly; in one case it reports the installed size (presumably) and in the other, the package's file size. If I report a bug on yum, probably I should use redhat's mechanism and not CentOS since the final fix is not in the CentOS project's hands. If the "short" kernel really was that short, it would be useless unless it had been seriously refactored, with lots of modules packages. OTOH the yum bug, and I now assert it is one, at worst leads to confusion. There might be an argument that I should have asked the question on the general users' list, but it seems to me that this particular question needs to be seen by developers: mere users can, most likely, just speculate - as some did here. Am I wrong? -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)