Re: Linux kernel version for jessie
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:32:55 Ben Hutchings wrote: This will be Linux 3.16, due to be released in early August. Release candidates for Linux 3.16 are already packaged and available in the experimental suite. Do you plan to back-port BTRFS changes to 3.16? I'm thinking of filing a bug report against the Debian-installer package to warn people about BTRFS. I don't believe that BTRFS in 3.15 is suitable for a typical Debian user and I don't know how good 3.16 will be. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
Re: Linux kernel version for jessie
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 20:08 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:32:55 Ben Hutchings wrote: This will be Linux 3.16, due to be released in early August. Release candidates for Linux 3.16 are already packaged and available in the experimental suite. Do you plan to back-port BTRFS changes to 3.16? I'm not aware of any plan to do that. I'm thinking of filing a bug report against the Debian-installer package to warn people about BTRFS. I don't believe that BTRFS in 3.15 is suitable for a typical Debian user and I don't know how good 3.16 will be. Do you think some slightly later version will be significantly better? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. - Robert Coveyou signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Linux kernel version for jessie
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:35:55 Ben Hutchings wrote: I'm thinking of filing a bug report against the Debian-installer package to warn people about BTRFS. I don't believe that BTRFS in 3.15 is suitable for a typical Debian user and I don't know how good 3.16 will be. Do you think some slightly later version will be significantly better? Currently in 3.15 they are fixing some performance problems which seems to have exposed race conditions and made BTRFS significantly less reliable. There are a number of other ways that BTRFS performance could be improved so I don't expect 3.16 to ever be as reliable as 3.14. If it wasn't for the plans to use 3.16 in Jessie I'd skip it for all my personal machines and wait for 3.17 or later. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
Re: Linux kernel version for jessie
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 10:35 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:35:55 Ben Hutchings wrote: I'm thinking of filing a bug report against the Debian-installer package to warn people about BTRFS. I don't believe that BTRFS in 3.15 is suitable for a typical Debian user and I don't know how good 3.16 will be. Do you think some slightly later version will be significantly better? Currently in 3.15 they are fixing some performance problems which seems to have exposed race conditions and made BTRFS significantly less reliable. There are a number of other ways that BTRFS performance could be improved so I don't expect 3.16 to ever be as reliable as 3.14. If it wasn't for the plans to use 3.16 in Jessie I'd skip it for all my personal machines and wait for 3.17 or later. Well, do let us know how that goes. I would *hope* that the btrfs developers will send the necessary bug fixes for inclusion in stable branches, but I don't think they've been very consistent about doing so in the past. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. - Robert Coveyou signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Linux kernel version for jessie
The Debian Linux kernel team has discussed and chosen the kernel version to use as a basis for Debian 8 'jessie'. This will be Linux 3.16, due to be released in early August. Release candidates for Linux 3.16 are already packaged and available in the experimental suite. If you maintain a package that is closely bound to the kernel version - a kernel module or a userland application that depends on an unstable API - please ensure that it is compatible with Linux 3.16 prior to the freeze date (5th November, 2014). Incompatible packages are very likely to be removed from testing and not included in jessie. Q: My kernel module package doesn't build on 3.16 and upstream is not interested in supporting this version. What can I do? A: We might be able to help you with forward-porting, but also try http://kernelnewbies.org/ or the mailing list(s) for the relevant kernel subsystem(s). Q: There's an important new kernel feature that ought to go into jessie, but it won't be in 3.16. Can you still add it? A: Maybe - sometimes this is easy and sometimes it's too disruptive to the rest of the kernel. Please contact us on the debian-kernel mailing list or by opening a wishlist bug. Q: Will Linux 3.16 get long term support from upstream? A: The Linux 3.16-stable branch will *not* be maintained as a longterm branch at kernel.org. However, the Ubuntu kernel team will continue to maintain that branch, following the same rules for acceptance and review, until around April 2016. I can continue maintenance from then until the end of regular support for 'jessie'. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. - Robert Coveyou signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:43 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] So we have a choice between: Linux 3.14-stable - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014) - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of the newer branches. There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way. Based on the replies to this, I think 3.16 is now the clear winner. To avoid disruption to the installer, I think we should keep 3.14 in unstable until the next installer alpha/beta is out, and then move straight to 3.16. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. - Robert Coveyou signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:39:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:43 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) [...] Note, that period is based on it being provided as an alternate kernel for Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. My understanding is that the non-LTS releases are only supported for 9 months, but the kernel version used in each non-LTS release also becomes an alternate kernel for the previous LTS. Yes, this is correct. I can also confirm that the Ubuntu kernel team is picking the 3.16 kernel for the 14.10 release. As usual, we will continue to do the stable maintenance of this kernel once Greg drops its support. As Ben already said, we will support it for roughly 18 months (until the 14.04.2 point-release). Obviously, it would be great to see Debian and Ubuntu sharing a stable kernel, and I would be more than happy to help making that possible. Cheers, -- Luís signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Sun, 2014-07-20 at 01:44 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 22:19 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: OOI who is it that is going to be basing on 3.14? I don't know specifically, but he implied that consumer electronics companies would be using it in a lot of products. Thanks. So not really anyone we're going to be having much synergy[0] with then I suppose. Ian. [0] /me self loathing a little for saying that word... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405841568.27009.39.ca...@dagon.hellion.org.uk
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:43 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) [...] Note, that period is based on it being provided as an alternate kernel for Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. My understanding is that the non-LTS releases are only supported for 9 months, but the kernel version used in each non-LTS release also becomes an alternate kernel for the previous LTS. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home. - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, `Good Omens' signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:43:06PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. [...] I did talk to Greg about this, but as you probably all know by now, he selected 3.14 as there are other major users with earlier freeze dates than us. Ubuntu 14.10 is planned to use Linux 3.16, in which case Ubuntu will maintain a 3.16-stable branch (not blessed by kernel.org, but still following the same rules). So we have a choice between: Linux 3.14-stable - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014) - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of the newer branches. There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way. I have a slight preference to 3.16 as it gets better MIPS hardware support (Loongson 3A, newer Octeon boards, etc.). That said it's not a really strong argument, as I will take advantage of the planned ABI break to backport these changes. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140719080943.ga12...@hall.aurel32.net
Re: Kernel version for jessie
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk schrieb: Ubuntu 14.10 is planned to use Linux 3.16, in which case Ubuntu will maintain a 3.16-stable branch (not blessed by kernel.org, but still following the same rules). So we have a choice between: Linux 3.14-stable - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014) - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of the newer branches. There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way. If there's a firm commitment by Canonical to maintain a 3.16 branch we should use that tree. This will provide the 32/64 bit UEFI changes from 3.15. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlskel1.2ho@inutil.org
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 22:19 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:43 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. [...] I did talk to Greg about this, but as you probably all know by now, he selected 3.14 as there are other major users with earlier freeze dates than us. OOI who is it that is going to be basing on 3.14? I don't know specifically, but he implied that consumer electronics companies would be using it in a lot of products. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home. - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, `Good Omens' signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. [...] I did talk to Greg about this, but as you probably all know by now, he selected 3.14 as there are other major users with earlier freeze dates than us. Ubuntu 14.10 is planned to use Linux 3.16, in which case Ubuntu will maintain a 3.16-stable branch (not blessed by kernel.org, but still following the same rules). So we have a choice between: Linux 3.14-stable - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014) - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of the newer branches. There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home. - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, `Good Omens' signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:43:06PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: Linux 3.14-stable - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014) - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of the newer branches. There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way. For Haswell support and in order not to have yet another drm needed backport, I'd vote for 3.16. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140718204145.GA27945@gluino
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 17:43 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. [...] I did talk to Greg about this, but as you probably all know by now, he selected 3.14 as there are other major users with earlier freeze dates than us. OOI who is it that is going to be basing on 3.14? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405718391.26270.34.ca...@hastur.hellion.org.uk
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 22:41 +0200, maximilian attems wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:43:06PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: Linux 3.14-stable - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014) - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers Linux 3.16-stable - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro release (October 2014) - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of the newer branches. There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way. For Haswell support and in order not to have yet another drm needed backport, I'd vote for 3.16. FWIW: me too. Mainly because 3.14 will be pretty old even by the time we freeze, never mind by the time we release. I don't follow it closely but AFAICT the Ubuntu guys do a decent enough job of the existing stable tree(s) which they maintain. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405718996.26270.38.ca...@hastur.hellion.org.uk
Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: Based on a linear regression of Linux release dates since 3.2, I extrapolated that the latest stable release at freeze time will likely be 3.17: http://www.decadent.org.uk/ben/tmp/linux-release-dates.svg. However, there will be little time for any necessary but disruptive fixes or packaging changes before the freeze. The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. Does anyone disagree with that? Nope, I agree. Is there a fallback if Greg decides on something != 3.16? Cross that bridge if we come to it I suppose. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1399023027.29636.28.ca...@kazak.uk.xensource.com
Re: Kernel version for jessie
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk schrieb: --=-7K30lQ4BLoJ3LSF2G3VV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Based on a linear regression of Linux release dates since 3.2, I extrapolated that the latest stable release at freeze time will likely be 3.17: http://www.decadent.org.uk/ben/tmp/linux-release-dates.svg. However, there will be little time for any necessary but disruptive fixes or packaging changes before the freeze. The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. Does anyone disagree with that? Sounds good to me. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlm6pvd.28c@inutil.org
Kernel version for jessie
Based on a linear regression of Linux release dates since 3.2, I extrapolated that the latest stable release at freeze time will likely be 3.17: http://www.decadent.org.uk/ben/tmp/linux-release-dates.svg. However, there will be little time for any necessary but disruptive fixes or packaging changes before the freeze. The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period. So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit. It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16. I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm branch be based on 3.16. Does anyone disagree with that? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
