[Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
Since the official MDK 9.1 update kernel still lacks some features, I decided to add some of them myself with the following changes: - Keep version/release to not breake 3:rd party modules / addons... - My latest vesafb patch that you can find in 2.4.21-rc7-ac1 - nForce2 UDMA/133 reporting (but I dont program above UDMA100 for now) - Updated pci.ids to help in bugtracking... - Updates to Firewire (ieee1394) revision 925, including nForce2 support - Updated Adaptec scsi aic7xxx, added 79xx (U320 cards) support - ACL support for XFS filesystem And since I haven't enough homepage space, I just provide the standard kernel precompiled. If you need any other, grab the src.rpm and rebuild the ones you need... And all this is found at: http://www.iki.fi/tmb/9.1/18mdk/ (and yes... Danny's latest kernels does AFAIK have all of these, except for the latest vesafb / nforce2 udma133...) -- Thomas Backlund [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.iki.fi/tmb
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Thomas Backlund wrote: (and yes... Danny's latest kernels does AFAIK have all of these, except for the latest vesafb / nforce2 udma133...) ^^ you sure I do not have the latest? If not I better add them. Anyway, my plan was: building an update on the newly released kernel and provide it through club (public) mirrors (I already had the security fixes in, but I need to check if/how much Juan version differs from mine) d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
Viestissä Torstai 12. Kesäkuuta 2003 19:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] kirjoitti: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Thomas Backlund wrote: (and yes... Danny's latest kernels does AFAIK have all of these, except for the latest vesafb / nforce2 udma133...) ^^ you sure I do not have the latest? If not I better add them. If you haven't changed the patch since your 17mdk, you have the same that is now in Juans 18mdk update... as for the nforce133 patch you have most of it in the nforce udma100 patch (since I still wont program the chipset above udma100 for now) but some '.enablebits' got mixed up, so it should be updated Anyway, my plan was: building an update on the newly released kernel and provide it through club (public) mirrors (I already had the security fixes in, but I need to check if/how much Juan version differs from mine) d. That's nice to know ;-) If you do that, I think I'll remove my 18mdk kernel page, and link to some of the mirrors. I just thought I had to roll out a updated kernel fast for those that needed my updated 13mdk boot disks with support for aic79xx... -- Regards Thomas Backlund http://www.iki.fi/tmb/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
On the topic of the update kernel and the kernel that Danny maintains, also applies to the modified update kernel from Thomas. Would you guys consider giving your kernels different names, just so that we don't have to ask confused users Which version of 2.4.21.0.18 are you using? The security update one, Thomas' one or Danny's? Thomas, at some point you used TmB for your kernel, was there something you didn't like about that? Danny, could you do something similar? Btw. I love your kernel versions, I think you are both doing an incredible job with the kernel. Thank you both. I just don't want other users to get confused. Best, Narfi.
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
Viestissä Torstai 12. Kesäkuuta 2003 21:59, H. Narfi Stefansson kirjoitti: On the topic of the update kernel and the kernel that Danny maintains, also applies to the modified update kernel from Thomas. Would you guys consider giving your kernels different names, just so that we don't have to ask confused users Which version of 2.4.21.0.18 are you using? The security update one, Thomas' one or Danny's? Thomas, at some point you used TmB for your kernel, was there something you didn't like about that? Danny, could you do something similar? Btw. I love your kernel versions, I think you are both doing an incredible job with the kernel. Thank you both. I just don't want other users to get confused. Best, Narfi. Normally I use _TmB + build number ... The reason my _updated_ update kernel kept the version was to keep it name compatible with the original update kernel so that 3rd party modules and RPMS wont complain ( nVidia, Ati, ...) When Juan releases a new Cooker kernel (probably 2.4.21 release based) I'll start posting updates, as I have many things on my todo list, but I won't start backporting them to a pre kernel ... since they need fixes that are in newer rc's... and they will use the 'TmB' ... Ofcourse I can't speak for Danny, but AFAIK his kernels are now at 20mdk going on 21mdk... -- Regards Thomas Backlund http://www.iki.fi/tmb/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, H. Narfi Stefansson wrote: Would you guys consider giving your kernels different names, just so that we don't have to ask confused users Which version of 2.4.21.0.18 are you using? The security update one, Thomas' one or Danny's? Well, kernelteam doesn't tell me if when and what they will or will not update. But I understand your problem. Perhaps a hackkernel-2.4 for 9.2 isn't such a bad idea afterall. Only...it sounds rather unstable (hack...). And I am afraid we will get zillions asking for feature XXX, which would make the whole thing unstable and difficult to maintain (there are already hunderds of patches in the kernel). Ofcourse, the real problem, IMO, is that kernelteam doesn't have time to reply to patches people send. Sometimes leading to them being lost:( I am sad that Juan did not update the kernel with some of the patches thomas and andrey supplied, but then, perhaps he is not even aware about it. Or priorities are different. But in the meantime, we are all doing the same work. A bit a waste of effort. Thomas, at some point you used TmB for your kernel, was there something you didn't like about that? Danny, could you do something similar? many scripts do not like it. Usually, you can more or less work around it though. d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
Viestissä Torstai 12. Kesäkuuta 2003 23:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] kirjoitti: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, H. Narfi Stefansson wrote: Would you guys consider giving your kernels different names, just so that we don't have to ask confused users Which version of 2.4.21.0.18 are you using? The security update one, Thomas' one or Danny's? Well, kernelteam doesn't tell me if when and what they will or will not update. But I understand your problem. Perhaps a hackkernel-2.4 for 9.2 isn't such a bad idea afterall. Only...it sounds rather unstable (hack...). And I am afraid we will get zillions asking for feature XXX, which would make the whole thing unstable and difficult to maintain (there are already hunderds of patches in the kernel). Wich is as I stated earlier: running Cooker kernel is like living on the edge... running a hackkernel means you already made the jump ... ;-() (feel the rush... it's not the fall that kills you... it's the stop at the end of the fall...) But as stated before as long as there is no proof that patches from a hackkernel would go into main kernel, it's most likely a waste of time... Ofcourse, the real problem, IMO, is that kernelteam doesn't have time to reply to patches people send. Sometimes leading to them being lost:( I am sad that Juan did not update the kernel with some of the patches thomas and andrey supplied, but then, perhaps he is not even aware about it. Or priorities are different. But in the meantime, we are all doing the same work. A bit a waste of effort. My thoughts exactly ... That's also why I placed my hackkernel and kernel25 projects on ice for now... And Juan posted earlier that he had many kernels on the way, (marcelo, rc, aa, ...) multiplying the testkernels by ... Thomas, at some point you used TmB for your kernel, was there something you didn't like about that? Danny, could you do something similar? many scripts do not like it. Usually, you can more or less work around it though. d. I could also replace 'mdk' with 'tmb', using '.1' increments against the mdk kernel -- Regards Thomas Backlund http://www.iki.fi/tmb/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
Thomas Backlund wrote: The reason my _updated_ update kernel kept the version was to keep it name compatible with the original update kernel so that 3rd party modules and RPMS wont complain ( nVidia, Ati, ...) Ah! That's a good reason. I agree with Danny that hackkernel is a bad, bad name! The kernels that you guys provide are as solid as they get :-) Thanks for your hard work, Narfi.
Re: [Cooker] Updated 18mdk update kernel...
Wich is as I stated earlier: running Cooker kernel is like living on the edge... running a hackkernel means you already made the jump ... ;-() (feel the rush... it's not the fall that kills you... it's the stop at the end of the fall...) ...or as those who like to engage in such things say, It the *sudden deceleration* at the end... Thomas, at some point you used TmB for your kernel, was there something you didn't like about that? Danny, could you do something similar? Marlo anyone? GD,RRR K
