|
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:04:16AM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-06-04T16:40:59,
> Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > If you want to apply the LVS kernel and build the kernel
> > from scratch then it is _stronly_ recomended that
> > you start with a kernel from kernel.org.
> >
> > This seems to be a point of confusion for many people.
> > How can we make this clearer?
>
> We could add a "patch_kernel.sh" script instead of recommending that
> people call patch manually. That script could check for the presence of
> LVS in the kernel and emit a big warning and abort.
I am not sure of the merits of that, as if the script barfs -
which it will from time to time given the crazy things that people seem
to do to their kernels - it may confuse people even more.
But then again, perhaps it is a good idea. Or perhaps implementing
the idea halfway, where it just interogates the kernel
to see if lvs is already in there.
I am particularly interested to find out where people get
instructions for how patching the kernel with LVS, and make
sure it has a really big notice in there explaining
that you really should use kernels from kernel.org unless
you really know what you are doing, and that many vendors
already have lvs applied to their kernel.
> Now, what would be nice was if Wensong would also make _incremental_
> patches available; that would make patching up a vendor kernel to the
> current LVS status at least possible for a normal user.
Agreed. Creating incremental patches for the stand-alone
ipvs tree isn't to difficult. But the single patch is
a bit more time comsuming.
--
Horms
|
