On 28 August 2010 03:59, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Alan Bartlett wrote: > >> I wish to make a minor correction of the last sentence, above. It was >> not built for CentOS but for EL5, explicitly RHEL 5. >> >> This discussion of my private work has *no relevance* to articles in >> the CentOS wiki or the centos-docs m/l. I would appreciate it ending, >> now. > > Silly me. ?Earlier this week I heard: > >> If a 22.214.171.124 kernel is required for testing, then yes, the >> most recent packages that can be found under >> http://www.centos.toracat.org/ajb/kernel/mainline/ can be >> used with an RHEL 5 / SL 5 / CentOS 5 system > > Obviously a forgery, in hindsight. ?Thank you for the > correction Thanks for the explanation, Russ. The correction was, however, to Akemi's message. ;-) No, not a forgery but a statement of fact. At the time it was written (I suppress the internal pedant who wishes to know how one may hear a written word -- apart, of course, when using text-to-audio device designed for the visually impaired), the current "bcat" kernel was then based on the LKA 126.96.36.199 source tarball. (Now current: kernel-2.6.35-4.bcat) I'm ready to be corrected if the above statement was made on a CentOS wiki page or within a centos-docs m/l thread . . . "Silly me." Yes, I agree with you self-analysis. The silliness is noted when one observes that the bcat kernel source package (for which I am entirely and solely responsible) was attempted to be operated on by following the tried and well-tested method that is documented within the CentOS wiki, which is for use with the CentOS kernel source package only. (A document of which I am, coincidentally, the co-maintainer.) However, no harm has been done. And I am pleased to see that other members of my generation are also prone to moments of silliness and can subsequently recognise when it has occurred. :-) Regards, Alan.