On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Folks, > > For those of you not following LKML, there's been a really really long > thread regarding how the kernel development process can be adapted to > improve the stability/quality of the 2.6.x kernels. The original thread > starts at > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0503.0/0512.html, but the > upshot of it all is the release of 2.6.11.1 announced at > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0503.0/1451.html. > > We had a short discussion a little while ago when the -as tree came into > existence and now I think the time is right to go and use this > not-quite-vanilla tree. There were some pretty big issues with the > 2.6.11 kernel (e.g. keyboards on some Dell Laptops not working, etc.) so > I think that using this stabilisation tree can only improve the quality > of LFS. > > Thoughts and comments greatly appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Matt. >
My thought is that Linus should be kept away from stable kernels ;-) My comment is that it starts to look as if 2.6.x.y might be the way to go, but after watching the thread develop it's clear that we need to give it a few days. Alternatively, we might need to plunder the distros' patches. I asked on -ppc about a problem with emu10k1 not compiling - it broke in 2.6.10 for ppc and seems to still be broken in 2.6.11. Got directed to a nice patch from debian. Lots of other stuff there, I thought distros were trying to reduce the patches they carry. And lastly, maybe now is really the time to encourage newbies to build the kernel they're planning to use under LFS on their host distro (if possible) before starting to build LFS. At least then they'll know if it is going to work for them. ? Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
