On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:29, <vinc...@cojot.name> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Musayev, Ilya wrote: > > I would agree with you if this would be an existing OS, but since it's a >> fresh install and we burn tested the kernel, why keep both? >> > > I tend to agree and most of *my* recent experience on RHEL5 and RHEL6 has > proven this true to some extend, especially if it's a fresh install. > > That being said, since it's a kickstart install and if you own the > kickstart server, why wouldn't you simply -replace- kernel-2.6.18-274 rpms > with kernel-2.6.18-274.3.1 rpms in the tree (along with its dependencies, if > any and rebuilding the comps and friends ). I used to re-base distribution > trees this way since at least RHL 6.1 (not RHEL). :). >
if you provide your custom built kernel in a repository that is enabled in the kickstart wouldn't that mean the installer would automatically use the latest (which yours hopefully is always numbered to be) and not require extra work (and scripts) to handle? repo --name=my-rhel5-kernels --baseurl= http://kickstartserver/repo/myrhel5kernel I guess if you aren't keeping your custom build newer than the install source it would be better another way, this just seems like it would be more efficient since it seems to solve most of the discussion without worrying about a post script or whether to have both kernels installed.
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list rhelv5-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
