Re: kernel-ml is not for production use
On 11/01/2011 08:42 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Yasha Karantykar...@csusb.edu wrote: On 10/30/2011 03:02 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: I should also note that kernel-ml is not for production use but it's been quite stable and Alan has been doing a good job of keeping it up to date. :-) http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml Akemi [snip- No, I was not referring to the mainline kernel available from kernel.org. It was about the *kernel-ml* package from elrepo.org. I was hoping everybody would read the link I provided in my post before using the kernel-ml package. Here once again: http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml In the Notes section: These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty or support. Using the kernel-ml may expose your system to security, performance and/or data corruption issues. Since timely updates may not be available from the ELRepo Project, the end user has the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether to continue using the kernel-ml packages in regular service. That is what meant by not for production use. Of course you can use it as far as you know what you are doing/using. The kernel-ml package was intended for hardware testing that may not be covered by the kmod packages. However, further discussion regarding the ELRepo packages must go to the elrepo mailing lists: http://elrepo.org/tiki/MailingLists Akemi From: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html 3. Limited Warranty. Except as specifically stated in this Section 3, a separate agreement with Red Hat, or a license for a particular component, to the maximum extent permitted under applicable law, the Programs and the components are provided and licensed as is without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including the implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement or fitness for a particular purpose. AND further along in Section 3 Neither Red Hat nor its affiliates warrants that the functions contained in the Programs will meet your requirements or that the operation of the Programs will be entirely error free, appear or perform precisely as described in the accompanying documentation, or comply with regulatory requirements. End quote. Although mention is made of a particular vendor (due to this being a quote from the EULA of that vendor and thus fair use under copyright requires such attribution), the quote is for illustrative purposes. How does the above lack of warranty from a commercial for-profit vendor differ from the These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty or support from el-repo or the similar disclaimer from SL? This is not a discussion of specific ElRepo packages, but a general question of interest to all users of packages advertised on the SL list -- ElRepo in this particular instance. Yasha Karant
Re: kernel-ml is not for production use
On 1 November 2011 16:42, Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu wrote: snip How does the above lack of warranty from a commercial for-profit vendor differ from the These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty or support from el-repo or the similar disclaimer from SL? This is not a discussion of specific ElRepo packages, but a general question of interest to all users of packages advertised on the SL list -- ElRepo in this particular instance. Yasha Karant sed 's/ElRepo/ELRepo/'
Re: kernel-ml is not for production use
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Yasha Karant wrote: How does the above lack of warranty from a commercial for-profit vendor differ from the These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty or support from el-repo or the similar disclaimer from SL? This is not a discussion of specific ElRepo packages, but a general question of interest to all users of packages advertised on the SL list -- ElRepo in this particular instance. Yasha, I am certain that even you must understand the difference between paid-for support by the largest Linux vendor on the planet for a kernel run by tens of millions, and a handful of people providing an alternative kernel (that could be useful to some users). Even with the legalese. I don't know what you are getting at though. If you think running kernel-ml in production, feel free to do so on your own terms, the ELRepo project however does not advise to use kernel-ml for production use and doesn't want people to assume that it provides the same maturity, reliability, security or support as the upstream kernel releases. http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml Can we now please end this thread ? If you like to continue your own thoughts on certain matters, feel free to do so on your own blog. I however don't see the merits of picking on people's words. Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
kernel-ml is not for production use (was: Re: usb patch)
On 10/30/2011 03:02 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Alan Bartletta...@elrepo.org wrote: On 30 October 2011 17:55, Stephen Isard7p03xy...@sneakemail.com wrote: I have an RCA VR5320 digital voice recorder. It has a usb connector, but isn't recognized by SL 5.6. snip kernel-ml is not for production use I don't want to get into a position of maintaining my own kernel. I'd rather wait until I catch up with 2.6.32 and impose on friends with newer kernels or windows machines in the meantime. Hi Stephen, You will have a very long wait. The SL 5.x kernels will remain to be based on 2.6.18 until EOL. ;) That is how TUV maintain a stable kernel ABI for the life of EL5. If you would like to have a SL kernel based on 2.6.32, please install SL 6.x :) Regards, Alan. I was rather surprised that Alan did not mention ELRepo's kernel-ml. :-O kernel-ml-2.6.35 does have the patch referenced here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/19/609 I should also note that kernel-ml is not for production use but it's been quite stable and Alan has been doing a good job of keeping it up to date. :-) http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml Akemi NB: In response to Akemi Yagi, I have removed any commentary or questions that are not pure technology -- no scientific, or fundamental engineering questions, including any relation to the ACM Code of Ethics or other societal relevance; pure technology discussions seem to be the only thing allowed on this list. The following post is pure technology. In the future, I will not be baited by responses, nor will I address any issue on this list other than technology. I have done a search for production on http://elrepo.org/tiki/FAQ, with one result: 2. What is the advantage of a kABI-tracking kmod over a DKMS enabled driver Dynamic Kernel Module Support (DKMS) is another packaging method for delivering automatic 3rd party kernel driver updates. The main disadvantage of DKMS for Enterprise Linux is that the driver is automatically recompiled (by the DKMS utility) for each new kernel meaning that the system must contain the appropriate development packages and compiler, something that is not always desirable on a production Enterprise Linux system. Is the above all you mean by kernel-ml is not for production use in reference to kernel 2.6.35? If so, can kABI-tracking kmod be disabled, using only the stable production upstream vendor methods? From URL: http://www.kernel.org/ as of 31 Oct 2011: stable: 3.0.4 2011-08-29 stable: 2.6.39.4 2011-08-03 stable: 2.6.38.8 2011-06-03 stable: 2.6.37.6 2011-03-27 longterm: 2.6.35.14 2011-08-01 longterm: 2.6.34.10 2011-06-26 longterm: 2.6.33.19 2011-08-29 longterm: 2.6.32.46 2011-08-29 longterm: 2.6.27.59 2011-04-30 Based upon the above, 2.6.35 appears to in the longterm (long in the tooth?) stable branch. Is the not for production use in reference to not having the upstream vendor binary interface for EL 5 or something else? Yasha Karant