So you're saying that the CentOS 4.x system is married with the 2.6.9 kernel? Maybe the packaging of the kernel RPM is different between 4.x and 5.x, but why would a 5.x kernel not work on a 4.x system, especially considering you can always download the latest kernel from the kernel source tree and run that so this doesn't sound right.
I just need the later kernel, not the new glibc which will break compatibility.
I just need the later kernel, not the new glibc which will break compatibility.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:55 PM, William L. Maltby <CentOS4Bill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmmm... Reaching through the half-heimers-fogged brain...
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 16:21 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 10-3-2008 2:48 PM Fong Vang spake the following:
> > Has anyone tried to install a CentOS 5.x kernel on a CentOS 4.x system?
> > Is this doable? I"m aware of the dependencies but I'm curious if anyone
> > has done this successfully.
> >
> > Basically, we have a few hundred 4.x systems that cannot be upgraded to
> > 5.x, yet, but we do need the kernel update to fix the XFS problem as
> > described here: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3125
> >
> You would be on your own with that! Do you have a non-critical system you can
> test on? You would probably need to get the source rpm and build it on a 4.x
> devel system.
ISTR that the critical item is the APIs (binary compat) provided by
glibc. If so, the glibc-2.5-24.i686 on 5.2 and the 2.3.4-2.41 are
probably different enough that binary compatibility would be broken.
Further, compiling the recent kernel on 4.x might be also difficult
because the source compatibility might be broken (although not certain)
due to parameter changes introduced in the newer kernel version.
But, that's a whole bunch of "ifs" that may be worth investigating,
depending on available time, resources and time constraints.
If one does get a clean compile and no apps break, very fortunate. If
the source must be changed, be sure to maintain diffs that can be
applied when new versions with critical fixes (like security) appear.
Overall, my personal bias would be to avoid the whole scenario.
> <snip sig stuff>
If any of my above is FUD, please forgive. It's hard to recall so much
from so long ago.
--
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
