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