David-Paul Niner wrote:
> RH throws in so many patches
> against the native kernel source that getting a clean re-build can be
> difficult.
>
> I believe the last time I tried it was on RHEL3, which was effectively
> Redhat Linux 9. Perhaps it's a bit better now.
This is out of date, now. The Red Hat kernel crew have been trying to
stick fairly close to upstream.
Dave Jones has written:
Got tired with the 'Fedora has a heavily patched kernel' memes, so
wrote up two documents to counter this FUD. One for Fedora Core 3
[http://people.redhat.com/davej/patchlist-fc3.txt] and one for
rawhide[http://people.redhat.com/davej/patchlist-rawhide.txt].
-- http://diary.codemonkey.org.uk/index.php?month=1&year=2005#20050125
and:
In pre-Fedora times, the methodology of distro kernel maintainence
was to draw a line in the sand at a certain kernel version, and then
cherry pick changes from upstream. Times change. These days upstream is
moving a *lot* faster than it was in the Red Hat Linux 9 days. We see
around 4000 changes go into each upstream release. That's a lot of work
to cherry pick from. We do this for RHEL, and its a massive undertaking
for a lot of Red Hat kernel hackers. That effort isn't going to be
repeated for Fedora, so it's not particularly feasible.
-- http://www.livejournal.com/users/kernelslacker/23627.html
Hope this helps,
James.
--
E-mail address: james | Real people: People who live "out there" in the "real
@westexe.demon.co.uk | world". Politicians at election time are obsessed with
| meeting this exotic species, even though it always
| seems to be surrounded by camera crews and reporters.
| -- BBC News
