[packagers] Re: Building packages for rpmforge

Yury V. Zaytsev yury at shurup.com
Mon Jan 31 22:04:43 CET 2011


On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 20:41 +0000, Jesse Hathaway wrote:

> But isn't that the same issue with replacing any RHEL core component with a
> build from RPMForge?

It is. For exactly the same reason, all packages from RPMForge that
replace RHEL core components are now moved to an extra repository that
is disabled by default and is supposed to be used only under very
specific circumstances.

> My understanding is that the linux kernel goes to great lengths to be backward
> compatible with userland. Anecdotally I have never had an issue running a new
> kernel on an old distribution.

I wouldn't be so confident about that. I've had some problems e.g. with
auditd from RHEL 5 running on top of a newer kernel.

> Would you please elaborate as to why backporting X.Org is a very very bad plan?
> What makes X.Org different from all the other packages that are being
> backported by RPMForge?

Not only backporting X.Org, but both X.Org and the kernel. These two are
the *most* important components of a distribution that everything
revolves around. No other package at RPMForge as anywhere as important
as those.

If you are looking to replace the kernel and X.Org you should be
seriously considering using a different distribution altogether, because
apart from maybe being a familiar platform to you such a solution
doesn't offer any of the most important benefits because of which it is
supposed to be used.

> I would need to backport the DRM kernel layer as well. My gut feeling was that
> backporting graphic card kernel drivers would require much greater technical
> knowledge that backporting X.Org.

You wont just need to backport X.Org. You will also need to backport the
whole kernel. You have just admitted it yourself. kmods are nowhere as
invasive as full kernel and X.Org replacement.

> At present we are using 5.5 so 6 is not an option. 

This sounds like a personal problem.

> Even if it were however, the exercise is still valuable as even Ubuntu
>  is struggling to use 2.6.32 with current hardware,
>  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzk5Nw

I wouldn't be even mentioning Ubuntu in this context :-) Really.
 
-- 
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev




More information about the packagers mailing list