On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 06/23/2014 02:48 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> I have another question. Now that the "plus" is in the name, should we >> drop the ".plus" tag? For example, the current plus kernel is in the >> form of: >> >> kernel-xxx.el6.centos.plus.x86_64 >> >> This will become: >> >> kernel-plus-xxx.el7.centos.x86_64 >> >> One argument against omitting the .plus tag may become apparent here: >> >> $ uname -r >> 3.10.0-123.el7.centos.x86_64 >> >> If/when there is, say, kernel-xen for c7, that will share the same >> 'uname' output as the plus kernel. >> >> Thoughts? > > That is a sticky one .. I supposed one could argue that the .plus does > not need to be there since it is in the name, but more important than > `uname -r` specifically is what is in /lib/modules/ for the directory > structure. If the kernel-xen and the kernel-plus are also trying to use > the same structure there, then that will obviously not work, so we will > need something unique in that part of the string. Exactly. So, kernel-plus-xxx.el7.centos.plus.x86_64 should be used? > Note: you will have to roll in KB's certificate changes (now in > git.centos.org) and we will have to build it on the server that can sign > the secureboot stuff before we release it ... the > 3154598aff24615c1f82d79ed299fb3d155d3282 revision is the GA kernel with > the new certs and brandig mods. > f355f5c33a16a2168bdad17ccc60db6b8198f6af is the revision for the ZeroDay > update with the certs and mods. I'm doing a test build of the GA kernel with the centos certificate added (almost done). Once I know it boots and works, I will submit it your way so that it is built on your server. Then further testing has to be done for secureboot and others. Akemi