Laurent Spagnol wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a little script that should help you for building of > Linux-Vserver from source code. > You can choose your version of Kernel, patch, and Util-Vserver. It can > be easily adapted from Debian to other distributions: > > http://dokuwicri.univ-reims.fr/files/vs-tools2/vs-tools/install-stage1.sh > http://dokuwicri.univ-reims.fr/files/vs-tools2/vs-tools/install-stage1.cf.sample We are using a custom system with a specialized build environment. We already have the inclusion of the vserver patches folded into that. But I appreciate the offer. Thanks, Paul > Herbert Poetzl a écrit : >> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:04:39PM -0500, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> >>> Hello - this is my first time posting here. >>> >> >> >>> The project I am working on is currently using: >>> - kernel 2.6.22.10 >>> - patch-2.6.22.10-vs2.2.0.5.diff >>> >> >> >>> That is working for us, but now we want to have support for IPv6 in >>> the guests. I am trying to decide the most practical way to get there. >>> >> >> >>> At the moment, the most straightforward path seems to be: >>> - kernel 2.6.22.19 >>> - patch-2.6.22.19-vs2.3.0.34.diff >>> >> >> >>> We are seriously considering that. But some of our people are >>> concerned that we might have migration issues to deal with, or at >>> least extra testing if we go that way, and are desirous of a more >>> minimalist change. >>> >> >> >>> (We had previously been using patch-2.6.14.3-vs2.01.diff. When >>> we migrated to patch-2.6.22.10-vs2.2.0.5.diff some of our guests >>> encountered incompatibilities that we didn't discover until after the >>> fact. >>> >> >> just curious, what were the incompatibilities you discovered? >> >> >>> That is making people gun shy. There is also some concern over >>> switching from a "stable" release to a "development" release.) >>> >> >> actually it is an experimental release :) >> >> >>> So I've also been investigating the possibility of adding the IPv6 >>> capabilities to the vserver version we have. I see that was done for >>> some vserver versions via additional patches from: >>> http://people.linux-vserver.org/~bonbons/ipv6/ >>> But there isn't such a patch for our kernel/vserver combination. >>> >> >> >>> I also note some discussion on your mailing list here that you are >>> getting ready to release a new *stable* vs release. >> >> we are on the verge to a devel release, which will be >> the basis for further stabilization and testing which >> should ultimately result in a new stable release, but >> there are quite some things to do till then, and till >> now the interest in helping with testing is quite low, >> so it might take a while ... >> >> >>> Depending on when that is to be available, maybe we should be >>> considering that one too. >>> >> >> you might consider a recent 2.6.31/32 kernel and patch >> as it will be the basis for that upcoming stable, and >> simply switch to that stable version once it is available >> >> >>> I have some questions whose answers should help decide among the >>> possibilities: >>> >> >> >>> - Is there a way to determine what user impacting changes there >>> are between the version we are on and some newer version, say >>> patch-2.6.22.19-vs2.3.0.34.diff? >>> >> >> that's not really 'newer' it is just a different branch, >> same kernel/time .... >> >> >>> (I have looked at the change logs, but I can't easily extrapolate >>> how those changes would affect existing user code.) >>> >> >> most likely there are no effects at all >> >> >>> - Would it make *any* sense to try porting one of the IPv6 patches >>> to vs2.2.0.5??? >>> >> >> not really, but feel free to do so if you like :) >> >> >>> - When do you expect to release the next stable version? >>> >> >> when it's ready ... feel free to speed that up by donations >> or contributions (mostly time or resources) >> >> >>> - What kernels with that next stable version support? >>> >> >> most likely 2.6.31+ >> >> >>> - How will this stable version differ from vs2.3.0.34? >>> >> >> it will be thoroughly tested, have full CFS integration >> and no known bugs :) >> >> HTH, >> Herbert >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Paul (Kyzivat) >>> >> >> >> > >