Edward Capriolo wrote: > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Roderick A. Anderson > <raanders@cyber-office.net> wrote: >> On 07/07/2010 02:49 PM, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: >>> >>> On 07/07/2010 01:14 PM, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote: >>>> >>>> Roderick A. Anderson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 07/06/2010 08:25 PM, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Roderick A. Anderson wrote: >>> >>> <snip/> >>> >>>> The source RPMs are available from the repository, >>>> http://rpm.hozac.com/dhozac/centos/5/vserver/SRPMS/ and spec files etc >>>> from http://src.hozac.com/viewvc/rpms/ (requires IPv6). >>> >>> OK something new to get into. IPv6. I've been able to avoid it so far. :-) >>> >>> I am getting an error from your repo. PkgKey 44 doesn't exist? >> >> Duh! >> >> yum clean all >> yum clean metadata >> >> >> Rod >> -- >>> >>> That ring a bell for you or anyone else. I'm sure Google will have some >>> input when I get to it. >>> >>> >>> Rod >> >> > > So the challenge with redhat/centos is the way kernel patches are > backported. It is very intensive to applying the myriad backported > patches as well as the vserver patches and be able to deal with the > conflicts. It's not really that hard, just time-consuming to do for every single release. That is why I gave up and created a vanilla kernel instead. For RHEL though, your issue is more that it is based on 2.6.18, which would mean an ancient Linux-VServer patch, or, trying to backport a new patch to an ancient kernel, neither of which is really feasible. > For fc12 I took the approach of applying vserver patch first and then > removing anything that conflicted with it.. Have you validated the correctness of that? Patches are quite often interdependent... > http://www.jointhegrid.com/fc12-vserver-repo/ > > fc12 does not backport many patches (30 or so) only 2 conflicted. with > Cent/RHEL you are probably going to get thousands of conflicts. I > would use RPM to build and deploy the kernel but trying to match patch > for patch is impossible (IMHO) -- Daniel Hokka Zakrisson