So you're saying that the CentOS 4.x system is married with the 2.6.9 kernel? Maybe the packaging of the kernel RPM is different between 4.x and 5.x, but why would a 5.x kernel not work on a 4.x system, especially considering you can always download the latest kernel from the kernel source tree and run that so this doesn't sound right. I just need the later kernel, not the new glibc which will break compatibility. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:55 PM, William L. Maltby <CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com>wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 16:21 -0700, Scott Silva wrote: > > on 10-3-2008 2:48 PM Fong Vang spake the following: > > > Has anyone tried to install a CentOS 5.x kernel on a CentOS 4.x system? > > > Is this doable? I"m aware of the dependencies but I'm curious if > anyone > > > has done this successfully. > > > > > > Basically, we have a few hundred 4.x systems that cannot be upgraded to > > > 5.x, yet, but we do need the kernel update to fix the XFS problem as > > > described here: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3125 > > > > > You would be on your own with that! Do you have a non-critical system you > can > > test on? You would probably need to get the source rpm and build it on a > 4.x > > devel system. > > Hmmm... Reaching through the half-heimers-fogged brain... > > ISTR that the critical item is the APIs (binary compat) provided by > glibc. If so, the glibc-2.5-24.i686 on 5.2 and the 2.3.4-2.41 are > probably different enough that binary compatibility would be broken. > > Further, compiling the recent kernel on 4.x might be also difficult > because the source compatibility might be broken (although not certain) > due to parameter changes introduced in the newer kernel version. > > But, that's a whole bunch of "ifs" that may be worth investigating, > depending on available time, resources and time constraints. > > If one does get a clean compile and no apps break, very fortunate. If > the source must be changed, be sure to maintain diffs that can be > applied when new versions with critical fixes (like security) appear. > > Overall, my personal bias would be to avoid the whole scenario. > > > <snip sig stuff> > > If any of my above is FUD, please forgive. It's hard to recall so much > from so long ago. > > -- > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20081003/49fa6e39/attachment-0004.html>