<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > Would you have any information on hand on the RHEL kernels, what version > and patches? (quick google didn't do it for me).
I'm using RHEL3, with RH's 4.0.1 versioned SRPM (which includes the local root compromise fix). The patches applied when building on x86 add up to about 5MB when bzipped - lots of changes. New drivers, patches from various kernel trees, backported stuff like cryptoapi, etc. I'll put up the patch some time, or point you to the Debian packages when they're done. > I don't understand why the first thing some people do is replace their RH > kernels. I've seen a number of times on this list people recommending to > replace the default red hat kernel, is it for technical reasons, because > you can, or because it's cool? Probably because it's cool. Red Hat do an incredible job on the kernel (it is a pretty ridiculous chunk of their engineering, really), so particularly if you're using RHEL, there is *no sensible reason* to build a Linus kernel for it (use RHEL kernel sources if for some reason you actually do need to build a kernel from source). - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/ "A 'lame' server is a server that is SUPPOSED to be authoritative, but, when asked, says: 'Me? I know nothing, I'm from Madrid!'" - Ralf Hildebrandt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
