On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:40:47PM +0000, Richard Melville wrote: > Why not just use the latest stable kernel? I'm using 2.6.24 with LFS > 6.2 and it works well. > I do so hope you mean 2.6.24.2 or greater. OK, not everyone has untrusted users, but why build something with a known vulnerability. OK, I know that the latest stable was .3 last time I looked, but that fails headers_check because of a bogus change.
Apart from regressions between kernel versions, particularly on less-common equipment, there is also the need to update a working config. Somewhere after 2.6.16, the IDE config details changed (people using libata can refer to /dev/sda instead of /dev/hda) which can make it interesting when you want to be able to boot both old and new kernels (typically, mount by label - still need to pass the correct root= in the bootargs). In general, I totally agree that people should update to a newer stable kernel, but until they have a config which works, it probably isn't the most productive thing to attempt. Even then, it can sometimes go wrong (new options get wrongly used/ignored, or there are new regressions). ĸen -- 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
