On Sun, 2004-24-10 at 20:57 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > But one short answer is: there's a new development model with the 2.6 series > of kernels, and an important part of that model is that distribution kernel > branches are the "actually stable", and the official 2.6 releases subject to > surprising changes. (The kernel developers point out that this is less a > change and more a reflection of the way it's been in reality anyway.) Thanks for the info, Matthew. I don't run the standard Fedora kernels because I use Win4Lin. I build my own because the Netraverse-supplied Win4Lin-enabled kernels leave out stuff I need, but either way it's a generic kernel.org kernel. I understand some distros have Win4Lin support included in their kernels. Might be nice if Fedora did this... > More on this here: <http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3513> > > A quick look at the patches shows that the big (as in K) ones are: > ext3-online-resize (44K), exec-shield (44K), netdump (49K), mlock (49K), > ext3-reservations (54K), 4g4g (126K), modsign-mpilib (204K), and tux (337K). > > Tux (the in-kernel static-content web server) accounts for 45% of the total > lines of added code. > > Module signing (there was something about this on one of these lists awhile > ago) is another 28%. > > And in fact, the eight patch files listed above acconut for more than 85% of > the lines changed. > > So actually, investigation may be swaying me back to the "it's lightly > patched" side -- plus a handful of moderately big additions. > > Take a look at the source RPM -- many of the patches actually have short > comments explaining what they are, or else are pretty obvious from the name, > or can be searched on. > > > > -- > Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> > Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> >
