[CentOS-docs] Kernel type in RPMs

Mon Mar 29 14:49:26 UTC 2010
Alan Bartlett <ajb at elrepo.org>

On 29 March 2010 01:41, Eduardo Grosclaude <eduardo.grosclaude at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Custom Kernel Howto says:
> With the buildroot correctly set up, it's time to modify the kernel
> configuration. Change directory to
> ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.18/linux-2.6.18.`uname -m`/ and copy
> either the appropriate type of configuration file (base, xen; if
> 32-bit architecture, PAE (for CentOS-5) or base, smp, xenU; if 32-bit
> architecture, hugemen; if 64-bit architecture, largesmp (for
> CentOS-4)) from the ./configs/ directory or that of the currently
> running kernel from /boot/config-`uname -r` to the .config file in
> this directory.
> I find this phrasing extremely difficult to understand. My
> understanding of this is:
> (...) and copy into this directory, under the name .config, one of two files:
> * Either the appropriate type of configuration file, taken from ./configs/:
>          o For CentOS-5: base, xen, or PAE (if architecture is 32-bit)
>          o For CentOS-4: base, smp, xenU, hugemem if architecture is
> 32-bit, largesmp if 64-bit.
> * Or,  the currently running kernel's configuration file, taken from
> /boot/config-`uname -r`
> I have deployed this understanding unto my Spanish version:
> (...) y copie en este directorio, con el nombre .config, uno de dos archivos:
> * O bien el tipo apropiado de archivo de configuración del directorio
> ./configs/:
>          o Para CentOS-5: base, xen, o PAE (si la arquitectura es de 32 bits).
>          o Para CentOS-4: base, smp, xenU, hugemem si la arquitectura
> es de 32 bits, largesmp si es de 64 bits.
> * O bien el archivo de configuración del núcleo actualmente en
> ejecución, tomado de /boot/config/`uname -r`.
> Is my version technically OK? (English and/or Spanish). If so, I
> suggest clarifying the said paragraph.

Hi Eduardo,

My ability to use the Spanish language is considerably poorer than
your use of English language -- the latter, for which I complement
you. :-)

Reviewing your comments, yes, I agree that the original English
version is unwieldy and convoluted. I remember, when writing that
section, musing to myself as to whether the added detail clouded the
overall picture. Although no one else has mentioned it, I agree with
your assessment that it requires some corrective work.

Yes, your Spanish translation, reads fine and is a correct
interpretation of the facts.

I have now made a note to make a clarification, along the lines of
your suggestion.

Thank you for your input.