SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

August 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:10 -0500
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject:
From:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Comments:
To: Livio B <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (41 lines)
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Livio B wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm just curious about a couple of things that I cannot find addressed in
> the FAQ or other docs (maybe I didn't look hard enough?).
> 
> - What is the kernel updating policy for SL? I mean, will SL4 (even 4.1)
> stay with 2.6.9 for all of its lifetime? Or will it eventually get updated
> to 2.6.12+ (when? how?).

It follows the Upstream Vendor.  I do not think that the Upstream Vendor 
will moved from 2.6.9 for the "4" series.

I assume the Upstream Vendor will move to "something newer" for the "5" 
series.

> 
> - Why some of the drivers have been skipped in the compilation of the
> kernel? For example the audio drivers ad1848 and cs243x have not been
> compiled either as part of the kernel nor as modules, just skipped.
> 

The Upstream Vendor decided that.

If we had changed the kernel from what the Upstream Vendor had done we
would have documented it in the SL.releasenote

> Maybe this is just what the original vendor does, but I couldn't find an
> answer for that distribution either.

Most of the "skipped" modules were done so because the Upstream Vendor 
either did not want to support them or because the Upstream Vendor thinks 
they are too broken(firewire)

> 
> Thanks
> 

-Connie Sieh

ATOM RSS1 RSS2