On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Mike Wangsmo wrote:
I meant to post an answer to this question (or one like it) a couple of days
ago. In any event, there are "unofficial" 2.0.33 kernel RPMS that I made
for newer sound module support on ftp.redhat.com. in /pub/sound/kernel-RPMS
These are NOT signed,
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Henrik Edlund wrote:
[...]
Is it recommended to follow the page you (RedHat) has written (where is
it?, can't seem to find it) about upgrading kernels if I want to make
sure my "unofficial" upgrade will be compatible with later "official"
ones? Or should I upgrade in some
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Tim Larkins (EUKSHEL1PO) wrote:
I know that I did get an answer to this question.. but I'm supprised that I
wasn't swamped by people either telling me that either a) there are official
rpm's of 2.0.33 out there.. or b) Just use the plain tar.gz kernels as
there is no
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Robert Hart wrote:
Whats RH's offical stance on kernel upgrades? Are we supposed to stick with
2.0.32 until they release an upgrade to 2.0.33? Or is RH Hurricane only
Red Hat only issues kernel upgrades when these are required to fix
serious bugs or security
I know that I did get an answer to this question.. but I'm supprised that I
wasn't swamped by people either telling me that either a) there are official
rpm's of 2.0.33 out there.. or b) Just use the plain tar.gz kernels as
there is no difference (and that thing in the Awedrv setup was a one off
