On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 04:49 -0400, JohnS wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 00:41 -0700, Mark wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, JohnS <jses27 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You can do: > > > rpm -q --changelog kernel >> changelog.log \ > > > rpm -q --changelog kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 >> changelog.log > > > > > > To view the changelog for patches and BZs Applied to the kernel or any > > > rpm. As in load up the newest one and run the command. I see a lot of > > > changes between the newest one and the one (194.3.1) that you tried and > > > said solved it. I would creep on up in versions to the newest one you > > > can run with out the problem then file a bug report with a good > > > description of the problem and type of hardware also (i think important > > > for your problem). > > > > > > > Egad - on the CentOS mirror I checked (USC), there are no kernels > > between 194.3.1 and 194.8.1. > > Sun May 02 2010 Jiri Pirko <jpirko at redhat.com> [2.6.18-194.3.1.el5] > Well that one you have. Why do you have it? Because I guess an > @CentOS.org Hat decided to build that one while all the other ones were > plain out skipped in-between? My ohh my the Heart and Soul was > forgotten. All of 4 - FOUR of them. > > Effectively your stuck with the one you got that works or you have to > learn to build your own from the red hat sources. > > > If I just build kernels from the Linux archives, would those just work > > as-is under CentOS? I haven't actually done that in a while, but if > > it's moderately safe using the "standard" spec files.... > > Maybe so be carefull. So insightfully what I do for my precious > customers on CentOS is I actually build the updates from the RH Sources > to keep them happy because some do like to plunder about when are > updates coming out. > > Maybe the cache directory eatted them up? ---- UPDATE ! Replying to my self those you see missing are not on Red Hats Public Mirror Site so evidently those are not built to go in CentOs. I presume those come out in the fastrack repository? Can someone correct me here if I am wrong. So effectively they not missing in action as I thought. Sorry Now they would be a nice inclusion. John