#$!@

Cyber Source peter at thecybersource.com
Wed Sep 7 09:32:16 EDT 2005


I would like to have a crack at that laptop here, can you bring it by 
our shop? If we get that going maybe you can give Jesse some extra 
credit in his Linux class, lol, jk. Not like he needs it from what I 
hear.....(proud Dad speakin..)

Richard Hubbard wrote:

>That is the problem.  I never expected different
>kernel versions to work together.
>what i expected is that if redhat issues a major
>release and calls it FEDORA CORE 4, then the kernel
>sources labeled as FC4 should match with the binaries
>released as FC4.
>
>What I don't expect is a major release called Fedora
>Core 4, and the kernel sources to be whatever the hell
>version we want to pump out this week and call FC4,
>even though we are several release numbers away from
>what we released when we pumped out FC4.
>
>When redhat released all of their prior Fedora Core
>releases, only ONE kernel version was labeled as FC#.
>All of the others were given different numbers, but
>none were labeled as the 'official' fedora core
>version. This way, most intelligent people would be
>able to tell which kernel source rpm went with with
>kernel at a glance.
>
>With FC4, I have now stumbled over three different
>releases, all called FC4.  My error was assuming that
>redhat would stay consistant with their naming
>conventions.  
>
>I also expected that when I did a yum install
>kernel-devel, I would get the kernel number that I am
>currently running.
>
>wrong again.
>
>I really don't want to have to recompile a kernel,
>just so I can get some !!@#$$%@#$%@#$&^#$%^#& wireless
>network card to run, simply because redhat refuses to
>supply the source code for the kernel that they
>shipped with a MAJOR RELEASE of their software. (I'm
>not running FC4test#, this is the 'gold' release.) 
>
>
>--- "David W. Aquilina" <david at starkindler.us> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Slow down there. The problem you experienced is not
>>specific to Red Hat / Fedora. Anything in this
>>wonderful world of Linux related to the kernel
>>itself is going to be very specific and not tolerant
>>of any errors whatsoever. Kernel versions and
>>variants always must match exactly, and you'd have
>>this problem were you attempting to install the
>>kernel-devel package, the GFS packages, or a
>>commercial product such as EMC PowerPath. The
>>Uniprocessor kernel and SMP kernel, for these types
>>of situations, are entirely different kernels. You
>>wouldn't expect a patch written against a 2.4 kernel
>>to work as is against a 2.6 kernel, would you? 
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>David W. Aquilina
>>david at starkindler.us
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>	
>		
>______________________________________________________
>Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
>http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
>
>  
>



More information about the nflug mailing list