-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 02:05:46PM +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Kari Salovaara wrote: > > But I've lost some understanding how these kernel versions flow ! I'm > > also a little confused of some related answers from some forums and > > lists. Questions : > > - is the kernel version used in CentOS the same as in kernel.org ? > > Yes, the CentOS 2.6.9 *base* kernel (which is the kernel 4.0 shipped > with) is pretty close to the 2.6.9 kernel from kernel.org plus some > patches (I don't know how many there were, though). > > kernel 2.6.9-34.EL still is based on kernel.org's 2.6.9 kernel, but has at > least 700 patches in it (that is added up for all architectures, so your > i386 kernel doesn't really have 700 patches applied to it). But the > kernel-API is still the same as in 2.6.9 (later 2.6.x kernels have a > different one). And there you are wrong. I give you the exemple of slmodemd, where you have to change it so it detects the CentOS kernel as if it were 2.6.10+. Otherwise, it won't even compile, due to difference on the headers. > > The other question (very much relates to the later part of previous > > question and the need to do kernel compilation at all) : > > - if I want to compile new kernel using kernel source from kernel.org, > > what is the best way regarding to maintain the workability level of > > exisisting kenel (see top)? > > You leave the path of binary compatibility to RHEL4. You might also have serious problems related extended functionality, that depends on patches applied to the RHEL4 kernel. In other words: don't do it. []s - -- Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org> "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEIAbPpdyWzQ5b5ckRAms2AJ4sGFAvmw8QMxWS7Zoa41XwjJGzXwCdHmGe 5FGG1PZu62R/wWp00xaAHnQ= =IeeU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----