On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:59:17AM -0500, David C. Hart wrote: > I'm one of those proponents of the Fedora concept. > > That said, I have considerable concerns associated with NPTL. Each > kernel du jour has been more broken than its predecessor. RedHat > compilations are accomplished by brute force by compiling module code > with dependency failures inline that cannot be compiled as modules. It's > the same faulty code but they are suppressing the error condition. The > number of modules with serious errors is astonishing. Moreover, > compilations tend to fail on an error in "sched.c" for > "active_load_balance" regardless of options. I don't like the fact that > NPTL requires ACPI which bloats the kernel with code that I don't need > or want on some machines. Ya, the UTF-8 thing was a big blocker for me for a while. But you can always roll your own kernel which will work perfectly with RH distros. One of the stated goals of Fedora is to bring the RH kernels closer to mainline, I assume this is so that the backporting efforts can be concentrated on the RHEL line. This is fine with me. The 2.6 kernels have NPTL built in so we will all be there eventually. -- Jack Bowling mailto: jbinpg@xxxxxxx -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
