On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Jon Peatfield wrote:

> I see that this no longer exists...

Ah, sorry. I must have deleted it in a cleanup.

>>> Presumably building these as modules should not affect the rest of the
>>> kernel if they are unused, although the kernels haven't gone through QA...
>>> It would be nice if the modules could be built as kernel addon packages,
>>> though I don't know it this is possible yet.
>>
>> If you could research this it would be appreciated.
>
> By me too!

Yes - I was thinking of using xfs on some of our computers, but because of 
time pressures and so on, we've switched our xfs computers back to ext3 
:-(. Also I was starting to worry that some of the millions of patches 
redhat that apply to the kernel might stuff up xfs, as they don't appear 
to test xfs. There is a system that might require xfs soon, however.

What would be great would be to make a separate kernel-xfs package which 
people could optionally install. Maybe it's worth asking on the xfs 
mailing lists...

>>> Jeremy Sanders <[log in to unmask]>   http://www-xray.ast.cam.ac.uk/~jss/
>>> X-Ray Group, Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, UK.
>
> Hmm, the UCS Unix Support keep trying to convince me that we are the only
> SL users in Cambridge (but they possibly just don't know any better)...

I don't think we've told them since we've updated. We've got ~25 desktop 
computers running SL, with another 30 odd systems to do in the immediate 
future. We did try using SuSE Enterprise to replace Fedora, but I really 
could not stand yast, and the horrible things it does behind your back.

Thanks

Jeremy

-- 
Jeremy Sanders <[log in to unmask]>   http://www-xray.ast.cam.ac.uk/~jss/
X-Ray Group, Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, UK.
Public Key Server PGP Key ID: E1AAE053