[LFS-DEV] stable kernel in next release ?
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas
a.hatzim at gmail.com
Tue Jan 19 15:21:25 PST 2010
On Tue, Jan 19, at 08:03 Ken Moffat wrote:
> We've always used current kernels in the book, but many of our users
> seem to have a distinct unwillingness to upgrade to newer kernels.
> This week, Greg KH formally announced that he intends to maintain
> 2.6.32 long-term
> http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable-status-01-2010.html so I wonder
> if it would be a good idea to stick with this series for the next
> release ?
> I don't have strong views either way (I normally use the latest
> kernel), but I guess not everyone follows lkml.
Thanks a lot for the news, as I am not following LKML, I was thinking to
write an email to ask about which kernel is going to be the next stable
and supposedly regression-free kernel.
I used to run the 2.6.27 (to the latest patch-level) until recently when I
finally replaced my old stable LFS desktop, which was running for a year
with the 2.6.32*. To be honest, I've tried to run 18.104.22.168(something) just
for testing, along with a development LFS (from start of January), but I
had problems with Xorg to detect the mouse, so I'm just following 2.6.32.
I think that since LFS is going to be released soon, it's a good
opportunity to stick with 2.6.32, although the 2.6.33 is tempting, at least
for those they have an Nvidia chipset (and I do have one), as it's going to
ship with the Nouveau driver.
Anyway, the news remind me that LFS/BLFS doesn't have a maintainable stable
branch, and these days where so many rapid changes happening from
day-to-day, many folks actually wishing (including me) to run in their
desktop stable software, which is (probably) future-less than the latest
development, but bug-free (again supposedly), so it looks like a good idea.
If there was a volunteer to lead the maintenance of such a stable branch, I
would probably help him to back-port any bug fixes (I could dedicate some time
once in a week or something).
More information about the lfs-dev