On 3/18/07, Maurice Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday, March 16, 2007 at 19:34:59 -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>Running "A.B-RELEASE+Patches" is very similar to "A.B-STABLE" since the
>user applied patches (available on the errata.html page) are included
>withing the -STABLE branch of cvs but the differences is the -STABLE
>branch of cvs also includes additional, less important bug fixes that
>were not note worthy enough to have an errata entry. The reason why
>patches are made available individually on the errata.html page is
>because some people are required to follow a policy of making *only*
>the minimal required changes to machines used in production
>environments. (i.e. "If it's running properly, don't mess with it").
One more question about this: is it supported to run a stable kernel on
a system that is release or release+errate?
Although there are only (typically) slight differences between -stable
and release+patches, they shouldn't be considered the same.
I have a test system tracking 4.0-stable (through anoncvs) and a few
systems that are running 4.0-release with some of the errate applied
(all kernel errata, but I skipped some others that I feel are not
needed, like the httpd-patch on systems not running httpd).
As an alternative to compiling the kernel on these systems, I could copy
the 4.0-stable kernel. Is this supported?
As for supported, I don't know. One is not the same as the other.
You'll be doing yourself a favor by not mismatching your kernel and
userland. Sooner or later, you will be bitten (as you will be
mismatching -current and -stable, or 4.1 packages on 4.0 release, and
so on.)
If your requirement is to maintain multiple systems concurrently, you
may be better served (and probably should consider) keeping everything
even and exact by using release(8) to build binary updates and apply
them everywhere. This process becomes much simpler, and you achieve
consistency across all your boxes.
DS
