Just for the record, we are currently working with someone from SGI to get a much better implementation of XFS working with the centosplus kernel. I want to wait to push the centosplus unsupported kernel (2.6.9-22) until we have this new and much more stable version of XFS code implemented. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051026/6f9781a4/attachment-0002.sig>
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 22:01, Johnny Hughes wrote:> Just for the record, we are currently working with someone from SGI to > get a much better implementation of XFS working with the centosplus > kernel. > > I want to wait to push the centosplus unsupported kernel (2.6.9-22) > until we have this new and much more stable version of XFS code > implemented.Any chance of a really-really-unsupported kernel as in the latest fedora 2.6.13.x rebuilt for Centos? I'm beginning to think that fireware disk support might finally be reliable there. Or maybe a backport of whatever has been done to the ohci1394, ieee1394, and sbp2 modules? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> wrote:> Just for the record, we are currently working with someone > from SGI to get a much better implementation of XFS working > with the centosplus kernel. > I want to wait to push the centosplus unsupported kernel > (2.6.9-22) until we have this new and much more stable > version of XFS code implemented.Johnny, this is _great_news_! I, for one, wouldn't mind testing it on some of my test RHEL systems. I'm dying for XFS support, being that I stopped after RHL7.3/XFS1.2 and RHL9/XFS1.3. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
On 10/27/05, Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> wrote:> > Just for the record, we are currently working with someone from SGI to > get a much better implementation of XFS working with the centosplus > kernel. > > I want to wait to push the centosplus unsupported kernel (2.6.9-22) > until we have this new and much more stable version of XFS code > implemented.Hmm- as time ticks past I'm starting to feel less comfortable about this change of policy. Granted that I have no rights to complain, or to request anything at all - and if I really felt strongly about this then I should just grab the kernel srpm and build it myself. I am still using the 2.6.9-11.106.unsupported kernel on one box in order to let me use the mythtv rpms from the atrpms repository - and I only need it to gain the extra tv card drivers that aren't in the standard centos kernel. So I now have a box with an obscure port facing the 'net with a slightly out-of-date kernel. Not a huge issue for me, and as I said, if I cared more about it I'd get down and do some rpmbuilding of my own. But nevertheless this appears to be a shift of policy for what I understood (quite possibly incorrectly) the centosplus kernel to be about. I don't suppose you'd consider having a centosplusplus or centosextreme repository where you push the kernel much further than centosplus- and keep centosplus very close to the 'proper' centos kernel for those of us who just want a few extra modules switched back on but also want to stick as close as possible to the main kernel? Thanks for all your efforts- please don't take this as a complaint at all, the whole centos team does an awesome job - I'm really trying to be as constructive as possible with this mail. -- Cheers, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051030/cc2ac085/attachment-0001.html>