On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:12:41PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev wrote: > > On 3/30/20 3:05 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: > > We have almost always updated the linux kernel to the "mainline" > > release. We do skip intermediate releases though because of the > > frequency of releases. > > > > For instance, today is the 90th day of the year, but there have been > > about 34 releases. The first release of the year was 5.4.8. There is a > > little overlap there because 5.4 is a longterm release. In any case > > there have been 13 releases for 5.5 since February 1st (14 if you count > > 5.6). > > > > I would like to propose keeping the kernel at the most recent long term > > support (LTS) version for the book. Users can, of course, use whatever > > version they want. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -- Bruee > > I think this is a good idea, especially after the IWLWIFI problems with > Linux-5.6 > (https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-5.6-Broken-Intel-IWLWIFI) > > However, the current version of the LTS kernel is 5.4.28. Between > 5.4.14-5.4.16, there was a problem with kernel's cryptography implementation > that would cause cryptsetup, bluez, and other applications that rely off the > kerne's crypto implementation to crash. > > I don't recall if we've had to adapt anything to changes in 5.5 or not, I > think that was all 5.2/5.3-related. > > I agree that downgrading to 5.4 might be the best approach for now though. > I have mixed feelins about the current LTS (5.4) kernel. It seems to me that gkh is keeping it a lot closer to Linus's git head than ever used to be the case, perhaps because of all the [PATCH AUTOSEL] mails on lkml which I filter out because at least in the early days a lot of them were just wrong and added to the noise.
My impression from picking random point releases of current kernels is that for my machine some are good and others less good - usually the problems get fixed (often by more backports) fairly quickly, but I no longer have confidence in saying that the latest point release should be used. If we do revert to 5.4, we need 5.4 headers and presumably 5.4 iproute2. I'm currently running 5.5.7 on my laptop and most of my current desktops, but 5.6.0-rc5 on one. However, on my server (Athlon 200GE) I'm running 5.4.23 with LFS-9.1. I used to use LTS for my server, but when I got that machine I used 5.3.latest because 4.19 was almost certainly too old to associate its video (Raven Ridge) with amdgpu rather than radeon, and I want a framebuffer for when I use it directly, 80x25 doesn't cut the mustard). Will be updating my desktops to 5.6.0 when time permits, because I don't need IWLWIFI. For my laptop, will only update the kernel when I become aware of a problem, or when I update it to 9.2. And for the one or two machines where I did builds with 5.5 headers I didn't notice any problems in what _I_ build. Hmm, actually the firefox widevine update leading to a problem with 68.5.0 might have been related to the headers, it was unclear if kernel headers or glibc was the cause. ĸen -- When alle is ſayed and all is done, ye must chooſe your faces wisely, for soon enouff ye will be playing with fyre." The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Prophecy 5004 -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
