[mythtv-users] Fedora vs. CentOS - Thoughts

[Greg Oliver]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Greg Oliver wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2010, at 4:33 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/11/10 21:02, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Anthony Giggins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...Axel is hopeful of getting 0.24 going on CentOS 5 soon and had 0.24 packages for RHEL 6 Beta.  So 0.24 on CentOS 6 may also be along quite soon, but long-term support for v4l there is still a bit uncertain.  That's my understanding, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Out of curiosity, where does this understanding come from?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jarod:  Of course, you are in a much better position than I am to know what is likely to happen here, and I'm not speaking with any inside knowledge.  Here's a recent post from Axel:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/atrpms/users/14383#14383
>>>
>>> Okay, I suspected that might be where it was coming from. I'm
>>> actually debating taking up the mantle to maintain the backports
>>> tree, with a specific interest in making sure it builds on a
>>> certain 2.6.32 kernel. I've got commit rights on the new build
>>> system tree anyway, and will be committing bits to get it all
>>> building w/2.6.32 again shortly.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> /me almost done with a backport of the entire current v4l/dvb
>>>>> stack (including IR drivers) to the RHEL6 kernel...
>>>
>>> /me shakes fist at kABI... Goes ahead with a build w/kABI checking
>>> disabled for now...
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jarod,
>>
>> Since it looks like RH is not gonna distribute their patchlist with
>> their kernel sources any longer, the benefit of having their kernel is
>> gone.
>
> How so, exactly? (Not that I want to be argumentative, I'd
> actually really like honest feedback about the issues this
> causes for folks).

Well, anyone (or any distro) can assemble a userspace with a vanilla
kernel, but redhat's best feature (IMO) is their kernel.  They have
the largest base of coders contributing to it, and maintain some
private patches as well.  I *trust* their kernels for their stability.
 Their config tools may be pretty good too, but we never use them, so
I do not really know.  What I do know is that we use Sun ACTA
platforms exclusively in the department I work in, and since RH and
Oracle like to argue over a few things we end up building kernels for
particular hardware mixes every once in a while since we cannot wait
for resolution.

We do extensively use the cluster suite as well, so I guess you have
to take my opinion with a grain of salt, because I guess without RH we
would not have that either  :)

While it is few and far between when we have to rebuild a kernel
nowadays maybe it is not so bad.  Except for poor little ole me at
home who wants to run a *patched* by redhat kernel because I trust
them to keep my data safe due to their track record and extensive
customer base of testing.  Trusting someone else to round up all of
the patches (and I know not all of them are pushed to Linus' tree) is
going to fall short with maybe the exception of Suse, and I really
just do not like their whole facade they throw on it - for a console
only server, I am sure it is just fine).

Just my $.02  - there are a lot of days I curse RH (and
Cisco/F5/Sun/Oracle  :)   ), but at the end of the day, I would have
it no other way..  I do see their point though - I guess a main
benefit to this is that the cloners have more of a job to do now - it
should definitely weed out the weak ones  :)

> Nb: there's supposed to be a source browser w/patch details
> in the Red Hat customer portal, but I've not seen the end
> product yet myself.

I'll go check it out.

>> I sure wish they would change their mind about that.
>
> Definitely make that known through official channels, as
> loudly as you possibly can.
>
>
>> Are you going to house a repo somewhere with your bits?
>
> Yep!
>
>
>> I know RH
>> won't let you push that out to us video junkies  in rhn  :)
>
> Yeah, notsomuch. :)
>
> (Though a set of kernel patches enabling newer v4l/dvb bits is
> a maybe for a later point release...)
>
>
>> This whole kernel srpm without patches really bums me out...
>
> Trust me, you're not the only one...
>
>
> --
> Jarod Wilson
> jarod at wilsonet.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>