On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:08:44PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Released are RH9- and RHEL- based kernels for x86 architectures,
Putting the kernel version into the rpm release tag is A Bad Thing for
many reasons, most prominently the upgrade paths are
broken/mangled. Please consider using something like
(or any scheme that puts the kernel version/release to the rpm name
technically. The above scheme is the one used by ATrpms).
Also put the repotag ("sgi") always last to avoid it to get involved
in rpm comparision algorithms (well, at least to make it the least
significant comparison operator).
And as a last note: some of the current filenames may be too long for
anaconda to deal with, if you or someone else (hello Stefan ;) build
new installer mediums based on anaconda it should be considered.
> as well as a tarball that contains fs/xfs/* which should be able to
> overlay any kernel.org kernel >= 2.4.21 (although the RPMs have had
> the most testing). Also, userspace rpms & tarballs.
Does that mean that kernels >= 2.4.21 could be entirely built out of
the tree with XFS 1.3.3 (e.g. the RHEL3/FC1 kernel)? Probably not,
because there is a patched kernel for RHEL3, or am I missing
Thanks for the release, it is certainly valuable to have QA'd XFS
> Please see the README in the above dir for more information, and fire
> away with questions on the list.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----