> My mistake, I confused myself. Time to change feet... > > I think what I was getting at is the packaging/kernel versioning used by > RedHat, which means that their 2.4.9 kernel is not called '2.4.9', but > '2.4.9-something special', which means you can't fit a version-labelled > module into it. My understanding of the problems Mark and others were > having trying to fit the 2.4.5 modules into the RedHat beta 2.4.5 kernel. > > Still, RedHat aren't the only ones doing it: SuSE's first 2.4 kernel (at > least on Intel) was "2.4.0-4GB", IIRC...
There is a good reason for the way RH names its kernels. Take a look in the src.rpm for 2.4.9-13 (which is what I have on IA32) you will find the bast 2.4.9 tarball and an enormous number of patches, including ext3 support. Calling it 2.4.9 would be misleading, it's not that. If I build my own kernel from RH sources, it's 2.4.9custom or similar (I don't have one handy). -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
