From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264274AbUEIGt2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2004 02:49:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264276AbUEIGt2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2004 02:49:28 -0400 Received: from port-212-202-41-96.reverse.qsc.de ([212.202.41.96]:14304 "EHLO rocklinux-consulting.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264274AbUEIGt0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2004 02:49:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 08:49:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20040509.084923.558886277.rene@rocklinux-consulting.de> To: shemminger@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: rock-user@rocklinux.org Subject: Re: Distributions vs kernel development From: Rene Rebe In-Reply-To: <409BB334.7080305@pobox.com> References: <20040507085312.3247d70d@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <409BB334.7080305@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.1 on XEmacs 21.4.13 (Rational FORTRAN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "heap.localnet", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi, On: Fri, 07 May 2004 12:03:00 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > After having being burned twice: first by Mandrake and supermount, and second > > by SuSe and reiserfs attributes; are any of the distributions committed to > > making sure that their distribution will run the standard kernel? (ie. 2.6.X from > > kernel.org). When running a non-vendor kernel, I need to reasonably expect that the system > > will boot and all the filesystems and standard devices are available. I don't > > expect every startup script to run clean, or every device that has a driver > > only in the vendor kernel to work. > > Fedora Core runs stock 2.4 and 2.6 kernels just fine... :) > > Jeff [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On: Fri, 07 May 2004 12:03:00 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > After having being burned twice: first by Mandrake and supermount, and second > > by SuSe and reiserfs attributes; are any of the distributions committed to > > making sure that their distribution will run the standard kernel? (ie. 2.6.X from > > kernel.org). When running a non-vendor kernel, I need to reasonably expect that the system > > will boot and all the filesystems and standard devices are available. I don't > > expect every startup script to run clean, or every device that has a driver > > only in the vendor kernel to work. > > Fedora Core runs stock 2.4 and 2.6 kernels just fine... :) > > Jeff Since other use this chance to propose already well known distributions I just want to add that ROCK Linux is also designed to run vanilla kernels - and in fact we only patch vitally important changes (such as compile fixes / header fixes) into the -rock kernel. http://www.rocklinux.org Sincerely yours, René Rebe - ROCK Linux stable release maintainer -- René Rebe - Europe/Germany/Berlin rene@rocklinux.org rene@rocklinux-consulting.de http://www.rocklinux.org http://www.rocklinux-consulting.de