X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net (3.203.202.84.customer.cdi.no [84.202.203.3]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nc@alpinelinux.org) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90CA8DC013E; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 06:54:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:53:58 +0200 From: Natanael Copa To: Kevin Chadwick Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] 3.4 kernel for v2.4 stable? Message-ID: <20120823085358.30f13884@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net> In-Reply-To: <65129.25107.bm@smtp139.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20120822215249.5addda40@alpinelinux.org> <65129.25107.bm@smtp139.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:07:56 +0100 Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > * We are not the first switching from v3.3 to v3.4. Fedora 17 > > already did. > > > > I see no problem with 3.4 but I wouldn't track fedora for good > practice, they shipped grub2 beta which damages multi-boot setups and > which was explained in an entire paragraph warning of this in the > relatively short manual. True, but at least would not be the first jumping to 3.4 for a stable branch. > > Cons: > > * Risk for unexpected breakages. > > * We still have to backport grsecurity patches since they are not > > supported from grsecurity.net anymore. > > > > I guess it would be counter productive now but wouldn't it be easier > for you to track 3.2 and the stable grsecurity patch That scares me even more. I know for sure we will need MTU and routing related patches. I have the feeling that 3.2 is not one of the better kernels. And if people are using the new stuff (eg openvswitch, vlan netpoll etc) those will for sure stop working. > or is the backporting little work? Kernels requires some work anyway. Backporting patches does not normally add much additional work. I would prefer doing that than maintaining the 3.2 kernel. There are also a chance that Spender and Pipacs will support 3.4 kernel now that it is announced as longterm. -nc --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---