| 1 |
Sorry folks - I guess I've made a right "dogs dinner" of this whole thread... |
| 2 |
I'll make more efforts not to be "that noob" next time :-) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
But I've got the information I needed about how to build old |
| 5 |
gentoo-sources kernels. So thanks! |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I've done my tests and the outcome is: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
3.8.8 (gentoo-sources - manually built) |
| 10 |
= NO nfs suspend issue |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
3.8.9 (gentoo-sources - manually built - nfs specific patches, removed |
| 13 |
from 1008_linux-3.18.9.patch) |
| 14 |
= NO nfs suspend issue |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
3.8.9 (gentoo-sources, stock) |
| 17 |
= boot hangs with pNFS block error |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
3.8.10 (gentoo-sources, stock) |
| 20 |
= nfs suspend issue |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Anyway that's pretty much what the ML thread was kicked off to achieve |
| 23 |
- so thanks all! Plus I've written a |
| 24 |
little script for ordered patch application - so that might come in |
| 25 |
useful at some point :-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Just wondering in passing what the motivation is for kernel eclass |
| 28 |
dropping support for automated |
| 29 |
building of, what many would consider, very recent kernel revisions? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Could support not be retained (for renaming kernel versions to build |
| 32 |
older revisions) |
| 33 |
- but say masking off these versions as not security patched / maintained? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Personally I was quite surprised I couldn't just rename the stock |
| 36 |
gentoo-sources ebuild to say |
| 37 |
gentoo-sources-3.18.8.ebuild to pull that kernel revision with |
| 38 |
automated patching... |
| 39 |
But perhaps I'm just showing my inexperience / naivety in this matter? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
All the best & thanks, |
| 44 |
Robert |
Archives