On 11.10.2012 00:17, Phil Perry wrote:
On 10/10/12 23:30, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
I'd suggest kernel30 rather than kernel-lt since the long term in
this
case is not that long and soon we'll be trying to work out how to
change
kernel-lt-3.0-x to kernel-lt-3.8.x or whatever the next LTS kernel
h
On 10/10/12 23:30, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
I'd suggest kernel30 rather than kernel-lt since the long term in this
case is not that long and soon we'll be trying to work out how to change
kernel-lt-3.0-x to kernel-lt-3.8.x or whatever the next LTS kernel
happens to be.
Unless the desired action
On 10/10/12 23:23, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/11/2012 12:57 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
So let's try to move this on. As it is currently "my move", I shall
confirm that I am prepared to "smile" at the suggestion of kernel-lt
and kernel-ml. To begin with, I would need to perform a small
operation
On 10/10/12 23:23, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 12:57 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
>> So let's try to move this on. As it is currently "my move", I shall
>> confirm that I am prepared to "smile" at the suggestion of kernel-lt
>> and kernel-ml. To begin with, I would need to perform a small
>
On 10/11/2012 12:57 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
So let's try to move this on. As it is currently "my move", I shall
confirm that I am prepared to "smile" at the suggestion of kernel-lt
and kernel-ml. To begin with, I would need to perform a small
operation upon a copy of the kernel-ml specification
On 10 October 2012 22:24, Phil Perry wrote:
> On 10/10/12 19:29, Alan Bartlett wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to advertise my ignorance -- for what does the 'LTS'
>> abbreviation stand, please?
>
> LTS = Long Term Service (although this is more of an Ubuntuism than a tern
> used by kernel.org who prefer s
45
stable: 2.6.34.13
stable: 2.6.32.60
linux-next: next-20121010
[/quote]
What I am currently supporting for EL6 --
In brief, the 3.0 series and the (latest) 3.6 series. Any evidence you
have for the 3.5 series is purely an artefact that currently exists
for the newly est
3.6.1
mainline: 3.6
stable: 3.5.6
stable: 3.4.13
stable: 3.3.8 (EOL)
stable: 3.2.31
stable: 3.0.45
stable: 2.6.34.13
stable: 2.6.32.60
linux-next: next-20121010
[/quote]
What I am currently supporting for EL6 --
In brief, the 3.0 se
Announcing the release of updated mesa packages into the EL6 elrepo repository:
http://elrepo.org/tiki/mesa
These package provide the mesa version 3D drivers, runtime libraries,
and development files to work with xorg-x11-drv-intel packages for
EL6.
These packages have been rebuilt with the --en
Announcing the release of new wch packages into the EL5
elrepo repository:
http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-wch
This package provides the wch kernel module for MCS9865 I/O PCI
cards, version 1.0.0.0-0, and is kABI compatible with all kernels
from 5.0 (kernel-2.6.18-8.el5) upwards.
It is built to depe
Announcing the release of new kmod-golden_tulip packages into the EL5
elrepo repository:
http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-golden_tulip
This package provides the golden_tulip kernel module for SystemBase I/O
PCI cards, version 17-0, and is kABI compatible with all kernels from
5.0 (kernel-2.6.18-8.el5)
On 10/09/2012 08:17 PM, Phil Perry wrote:
On 04/10/12 18:49, Antonio Dupont wrote:
Hello
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 10/03/2012 05:57 PM, Antonio Dupont wrote:
Hello Akemi,
Thank you for the reply. The ke
On 10.10.2012 11:28, Phil Perry wrote:
How about kernel-ml and kernel-lts for mainline and lts kernels,
respectively. But even that gets complicated as it looks like Alan is
currently maintaining 3.0, 3.5 and 3.6 branches.
Still, renaming the 3.0.x packages to kernel-lts would at least
differen
On 10/10/12 11:18, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Phil Perry wrote:
On 10/10/12 09:30, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:21 AM, Nux! wrote:
On 10.10.2012 09:12, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their
On 10/10/2012 01:18 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Phil Perry wrote:
On 10/10/12 09:30, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
Oh well. +1 for separating LTS. "kernel-ml" is too broad now, covering
3-4 different versions.
Great suggestion. I agree, it makes sense to separate versions so yum is
able to in
On 10.10.2012 11:18, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
perhaps you could rename the packages kernel-ml-lts and keep them in
the same repo, not sure if it's better than a separate repo but I
don't see other options.
Yes, I was going to suggest this as well. So it's either this or a
different repo.
Phil Perry wrote:
On 10/10/12 09:30, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:21 AM, Nux! wrote:
On 10.10.2012 09:12, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own
repo or would it be just spreading too thin?
On 10/10/12 09:30, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:21 AM, Nux! wrote:
On 10.10.2012 09:12, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own
repo or would it be just spreading too thin? Maybe some hardlin
On 10/10/2012 11:21 AM, Nux! wrote:
On 10.10.2012 09:12, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own
repo or would it be just spreading too thin? Maybe some hardlinks as
to not waste space.. I'm not using t
On 10.10.2012 09:12, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own
repo or would it be just spreading too thin? Maybe some hardlinks as
to not waste space.. I'm not using the lts kernel but I'm thinking
many
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own repo
or would it be just spreading too thin? Maybe some hardlinks as to not
waste space.. I'm not using the lts kernel but I'm thinking many do
and they don't want to have the lts kernel
Hi,
Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own repo
or would it be just spreading too thin? Maybe some hardlinks as to not
waste space.. I'm not using the lts kernel but I'm thinking many do and
they don't want to have the lts kernel updated by the "latest" one.
I know p
22 matches
Mail list logo