On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 05:45 -0400, David Boles wrote:
> on 10/29/2007 10:44 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > David Boles wrote:
> >> on 10/29/2007 7:03 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>> David Boles wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> As for Fedora itself. Since you no longer use it why to you care anymore?
> >>>>> I have more than one machine, so I track fedora on a box that I can
> >>>>> afford to have fail to boot on occasion to know what to expect from the
> >>>>> next RHEL/Centos.
> >>>> Ah! I see now. A 'bitch about it' box just for Fedora. ;-)
> >>> I look at it as having 3 chances to get the broken stuff fixed before
> >>> I'm going to have to live with it in Centos... But, I'd give it much
> >>> more of a workout if wasn't such a pain to keep updated under vmware
> >>> since the interface to vmware tools changes all the time.
> >>
> >> I thought that they, VMware, fixed that with 6.0x.
> >
> > Version 6.0 of what? I don't see how they can fix it permanently
> > without a sane interface on the Linux side to interoperate with.
>
>
> Version 6.0 of VMware. Are you using an older version? There were some
VMware Workstation, in particular, is at version 6.0.2. Other VMware
products have their own numbering schemes.
> problems when 'they' (Linux folks) moved and renamed the kernel header
> files. It was fixed with a patch to the VMware config file. Either d/l and
> apply the patch or use your favorite text editor on the config. This was
> discussed to death, like this subject's thread, several times.
VMware modules currently build OK, but still need to be rebuilt at every
kernel upgrade. If the module API changes again, then VMware users will
all be back to using unofficial vmware-any-any patches to hack together
something that works.
That's for the VM itself. VMware Tools (for the client machine) have
the same issues: require rebuilding for kernel updates, patches when the
module API changes.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
