On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 14:26 -0400, Pandora Fawcett wrote: > > may be obvious but... > > i don't have a jfs on suse 9 yet but want the latest before > implementing it. suse 9 alrdy has 1.1.6. > in order to go to 1.1.7 do i only execute the > jfs-2.4-1.1.6-to-1.1.7.patch with no recompile?
You don't want anything to do with jfs-2.4-1.1.6-to-1.1.7.patch. Suse 9 runs a 2.6 kernel, and the jfs version numbers don't have any meaning in the 2.6 kernel. I believe the Suse 9 kernel is pretty up-to-date as far as jfs is concerned (in fact, I'm sure it's more recent than 1.1.7). The only reliable way to make sure you have the latest jfs patches would be to compare the suse 9 kernel source with the latest kernel.org kernel (2.6.12-rc2), or the latest -mm kernel if you want to be bold, and then backport any changes. The jfs-patches archive may be helpful if you really wanted to do this. The version number (1.1.7) is really only meaningful for jfsutils (and I'm behind on publishing 1.1.8). Since jfs has merged into the mainline kernel, it would be too much hassle to maintain a numbered version across different branches of the kernel. > or fully jfs-2.4-1.1.7.tar.gz, then patch the above & recompile > kernel? This would only be applicable to a 2.4 kernel, and 1.1.7 is a bit out of date itself. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
