On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote: > Hallo all > > Let me run this up the mast and see how it catches the breeze. > > At the moment I have an LFS5.1 system on a 2.4 kernel. I want > to update this to something akin to LFS6.1 (or HLFS6.1) for reasons > of security, but retain the 2.4 kernel for reasons of stability. >
I think you really need to define what stability means for you. There are a few spacialised places where 2.4 might have merit, and a few specific drivers that aren't in 2.6 or are apparently troublesome, but for most desktop and server workloads 2.6 should give much better results. > Choices seem to be: > 1/ update (or build again) the 5.1 system with various packages > updated (OpenSSL, zlib etc etc) > Plausible. But, updating zlib etc is what you should have already done ;) And you're already running 2.4.31, I suppose. In all seriousness, the base system can be kept reasonably secure by judicious updates without rebuilding. The desktop is a different matter - if you use either gonome or kde, you'll want something a lot more recent. Those will *probably* build with a 2.4 kernel, but you may encounter unique problems which reduce functionality. If you really aren't convinced about 2.6, build a "stable" 2.6 kernel on your existing system (if you want to use modules, don't forget module-init-tools and 'make moveold' after configuring it). Then you can see if it's as bad as you fear. > 2/ build the 6.1 system but customise for a 2.4 kernel. This would > involve such things as: > a) kernel headers from 2.4 > b) building glibc for 2.4 > c) udev omitted > d) NPTL may need tweaking > e) others to be found ... > > Obviously both choices break the books. The first choice ought to be > less problematic, but the second should be better if it were to prove > successful. Glibc, and indeed the kernel headers, is pretty much untested in this context. NPTL won't work at all on a non-RedHat system. iproute2 will probably not work, therefore bootscripts and networking can't be done using the book's versions. Much pain can be expected. At the end of the day, if you want an LFS system with a 2.4 kernel, 5.1 with upgrades is as good as it gets. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
