On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:16 +0100, Lisa Muir wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Declan Moriarty wrote:
> > AFAIK, the 2.4x kernels never had sata. 2.4.18 certainly hadn't.
As someone pointed out they had, IF..... = they hadn't.
>> You know... the more I think about it i say sod the f'ing business
> tools. They're just SuSE's gui wrappers on oss stuff. Might be better
> off re-building it from the current version of the tools. Do a little
> prototyping to see what I'm getting / missing and weigh up based on
> that how much people are going to bitch at me. But hey... I'll be able
> to support the fecker without having to be told the solution is EOL
> and that there's _no_ support.
Then when you're on holidays, some twit will run yum update or the
equivelant in the office, and your poser phone will get jingle :-).
As you rebuild, be careful how you tackle the version of kernel headers
you use. Just to give an illustration, LFS was building trying to go to
kernel 2.6.16.16 with kernel headers from 2.6.12.0 - both considered
"stable". DRI would not work. It was traced to drm.h where a piece of
code called for simply didn't exist in the earlier headers. Kernel
headers have changed, much more so in recent kernels.
--
With Best Regards,
Declan Moriarty.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
