All,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> Behalf Of Connie Sieh
> Sent: 10 March 2005 16:01
> To: Miles O'Neal
> Cc: Troy Dawson; 'Ryan Enge'; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SL on 586 hardware
> 
> 
> The installer should check hardware arch fairly close to the 
> beginning 
> and tell you that a 586 is not supported.
> 
> See more below
> 
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Miles O'Neal 
> wrote:
> 
> > I know this is an old thread, but it hit me last night.
> > 
> > Troy Dawson said...
> > |S.L. does not support the i586 kernel, and currently has 
> no plans to.  This is
> > |because RHEL does not support it.  We just don't have the 
> manpower to deal
> > |with any issues that might arise with a new kernel.
> > |If Whitebox does it, then they could be a good choice.
> > |If you want to stick with Scientific Linux, one thing you 
> could do would be to
> > |just run the old RedHat 9 kernel.  But then, that wouldn't 
> give you a uniform
> > |enviroment, so maybe that wouldn't be the best choice.
> > 
> > Dumb question.  The installer takes you all the way through
> > the config stuff, right up to package determination (or
> > selection, I forget which).  To do all this, we are *already
> > running a kernel that supports my hardware*.  What am I missing
> > here?

The installer runs the 386 BOOT kernel I believe - supports the lowest
common denominator which is why it works.

Martin.


> > I understand that SL is essentially a rebuild of EL, and
> > don't expect y'all to support a lot of unsupported stuff
> > (though I won't mind if you do).  I'm just not getting why
> > the kernel that seems to be available isn't available.
> > Is the kernel used at install time not the same kernel
> > that gets installed?
> 
> It is derived from the same source but is NOT the same kernel.
> -connie sieh
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Miles
> > 
>