I'm compiling Advanced server 2.1 sources in an effort to create an
AS2.1 pilot installation so that management could evaluate it with the
possibility of later buying one of the support licenses from RedHat.
So far I've compiled sources on a RH7.2, created the installation CD's
and installed from CD, using the earliest available kernel package
(2.4.9-e.9). The installation went fine and I'm not having any problems
with the resulting system so far.
Now I'm compiling the sources again (this time on my initial install of
AS2.1 build) to make sure the result is as close to what would come in
an official AS2.1 distribution as possible. Naturally, I'm interested in
including the most recent kernel in the resulting CD set. However, none
of the kernel-2.4.18-* source RPMS from the updates compile. Each of
them includes at least half a dozen patches that seem to want to patch
files that don't exist in the sources. After removing references to the
problem patches from the spec file and recompiling, either the make
config stage complains about there not being defaults for some of the
configuration settings (easily fixed), or the "make" stage can't find a
target to make something. And since I'm not a kernel hacker, I'm not
sure how to fix that.
I'd really like to be able to evaluate the most recent kernels for AS
since they seem to include a lot of useful patches (especially the
Oracle-related ones and the new driver modules), otherwise we might as
well go with RH7.3 for deployment. So if anyone can point me in the
right direction for compiling the most recent kernel packages, I'd
greatly appreciate it.
My system is an i686 one, I use rpmbuild --rebuild kerne*.src.rpm
command, or rpmbuild -ba /pathtospecfile command. I'm compiling as a
non-root user with %top_dir set properly. Every single applicable AS2.1
package that I compiled on 7.2 (about 1200 of them in total) is installed.
Thanks in advanced.
Hi. Can someone please tell me the GRUB equivalent for the lilo
"vga=791" line in lilo.conf? I really don't like that lilo was
completely removed cause I used to be able to add that line to get a
1024x768 text console, which is necessary on my laptop, which was just
upgraded to Fedora 0.94. If there is another way to do this, please let
Hi I am new to RH and i have installed RH9 and managed to update it with
The obvious question is :
How can I manage to put some repositories to get a dist-upgrade from RH9
to Fedora ?
Currently, it's common to see third party software developers developing
for and recommending the usage of RedHat Linux. For instance, Rational
(now IBM) supports the latest version of RedHat Linux with its ClearCase
line of products. Now that RHL is Fedora, are there any guesses as to
how these ISVs will take it? Is Fedora guaranteeing these companies no
changes in the version of libraries in a system for a given release version?
I'm just worrying that whatever perceived attraction developing for a de
facto standard like RHL might not carry over to Fedora. My next email
for tonight will be to Rational to ask if they'll be making releases for
*Richard Plana, B.Sc., CCNA*
> The way I see it, Red Hat distributes the GPL with the software, but
> they won't sell it unless the buyer signs a contract that contradicts it
> saying that they will lose all support if they distribute it or use it
> on more than one computer.
Ask your lawyer this question:
Does the GPL demand or guarantee anything in regards to under what
conditions BINARIES (object code or executable) are licensed for
I see a lot of jibber-jabber in the GPL about how you
must provide access to source code if you are distributing object or
executable forms of the code. I don't see much discussion on
guaranteeing the right to redistribute object code. But as soon as I can
afford a legal department (like the one Red Hat has) I'll make it a
point to have them scour the GPL to make sure that I have the right to
sell and distribute binary code under a license that restricts the
redistribution and use of that binary code in exchange for continued
support and maintains of the binary code...you know sort of like Red
Hat has done.
Red Hat provides the source code in the form of SRPMs for all GPL'd RHEL
code. Only thing I can possibly see wrong with that is you'd need rpm
or some other extraction tool to extract the source code....so providing
rpm as a srpm is a sort of catch 22. Then again...isn't offering the
source to tar, in a tarball the same sort of problem. I think the best
answer to this paradox is found at the bottom of a tequila shot glass,
which I will soon be searching.
-jef"soon...it will be time to sell my one unopened box of Mr. T cereal
on ebay, and buy that Croatian summer home I've always wanted"spaleta
The BitTorrent link for the source discs for Severn2 is incorrect.
The link on http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/ is correct.
alan at clueserver.org - alan at ctrl-alt-del.com
"...new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great
engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of
free government, have usually wreaked their alternate
malignity on each other...."
- James Madison in The Federalist No. 43,