On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 20:15 -0500, Jim Perrin wrote: > > Jim thank you for the leads. > > Sure, but actually, Johnny had it right on the money. I forgot about > the kernel notation in the release notes. It's very similar to what > was posted in previous threads, and probably has that "Official" tone > you were hunting for. The question was, can you do it .. you can as to whether or not you SHOULD do it .. that is a different question entirely. Unless you know more about building kernels than the RH development team and/or the CentOS development team ... or unless you have a problem that can not be solved in ANY OTHER WAY ... then you should use the stock kernel. The stability of the kernel and the way it interacts with the rest of the system IS what makes CentOS. It is an Enterprise solution that is not latest/greatest. If you change the kernel, stuff starts breaking. Example ... we have a bug report where the new ssh (which requires kernel auditing) doesn't properly list users with the "w" command. Only people with this problem ... the ones not using the standard CentOS kernel. Reason ... in this case the new kernel REQUIRES the audit and audit-lib packages to be installed ... which they don't have since they rolled their own kernel. There are hundreds of packages added to the CentOS kernel by the upstream developers that are not in the kernel.org kernels ... everyone of those has a purpose to be there and many are required to make other parts of CentOS function. You should NEVER change the kernel or glibc unless it is absolutely required. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060402/8835f2c6/attachment-0005.sig>