Re: Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
Henrique M Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for Debian, we're in the second test cicle. Maybe if there is a third cycle for some reason, a kernel update to 2.2.17-pre1 might be considered... Now it looks likely that we will need a third cycle, because the package postgresql-6.5.3-22 is still (maybe accidentally) stuck in incoming, and it is needed for successful upgrade from slink to potato. -- Chuan-kai Lin
Re: Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: Henrique M Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for Debian, we're in the second test cicle. Maybe if there is a third cycle for some reason, a kernel update to 2.2.17-pre1 might be considered... Now it looks likely that we will need a third cycle, because the package postgresql-6.5.3-22 is still (maybe accidentally) stuck in incoming, and it is needed for successful upgrade from slink to potato. Still, I've just seen in linux-kernel that 2.2.16 and (probably) 2.2.17pre1 seem to have issues with the PS2 mouse port under SMP (hangs/crashes after a while), which would require reverting the PS2 driver to 2.2.15. Maybe just patching 2.2.15 with 2.2.17pre1 security fixes and the VM fixes (but nothing else) would work. But that's something for Debian's kernel maintainer to decide, so I'll just wait to see. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
Hey, Didn't 2.2.16 appear to solve some security bugs of 2.2.15? If this is the case, even if the patches applied to 2.2.15 actually close those security bugs, wouldn't 2.2.15 give an impression of lack of security? I can imagine someone who read the security alert (and didn't read carefully that the patched 2.2.15 don't have this problem) thinking that this is odd. Well, anyhow this is just a comment. I am not a developper and I appreciate their work. Hope they decision is the best. Paulo -- Paulo Jose da Silva e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ime.usp.br/~rsilva Aluno de doutorado em Matematica Aplicada (Ph.D. Student in Applied Math.) Universidade de Sao Paulo - Brazil Teoria é o que não entendemos o (Theory is something we don't) suficiente para chamar de prática.(understand well enough to call practice)
Re: Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Paulo J. da Silva e Silva wrote: Didn't 2.2.16 appear to solve some security bugs of 2.2.15? If this is the case, even if the patches applied to 2.2.15 actually close those security bugs, wouldn't 2.2.15 give an impression of lack of security? The real problem with 2.2.15+security patches is the VM under heavy load: the kernel goes amok and starts killing tasks right and left. 2.2.16 is reportedly much better on that regard, at least from what I could get in a few threads from the kernel mailing list. So you really should update to either 2.2.16+Alan's combo errata patch (or 2.2.17-pre1, which is a fully errata-patched and cleaned-up 2.2.16 without any other major modifications) if your machine sees some heavy load occasionally (if it was under constant heavy load, you'd have done it already :-) ). As for Debian, we're in the second test cicle. Maybe if there is a third cycle for some reason, a kernel update to 2.2.17-pre1 might be considered... I personally don't think 2.2.15 with the security patches is so bad that it deserves causing a third test cycle, and apparently the kernel maintainer agrees. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
Didn't 2.2.16 appear to solve some security bugs of 2.2.15? If this is the case, even if the patches applied to 2.2.15 actually close those security bugs, wouldn't 2.2.15 give an impression of lack of security? This is what I was thinking if/when potato ships with 2.2.15. Potential new users will think Kernels 2.2.16 are unsecure and that could reflect badly on potato. I'm hoping that if potato doesn't ship with 2.2.16 that it (ala slink) at least ships with the new kernel in source form and/or that it's updated quickly to 2.2.16. -- Regards, | Does my signature block look out-of-alignment to you? .| If so, try using fixed-width fonts for E-Mail. For Randy| Windows, tell it to use the terminal or another | fixed-width, non-proportional font to display messages.
Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
Or do they intend to ship potato with 2.2.16? Charles Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does kernel-source 2.2.15-3 include latest ac patches?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Charles Lewis wrote: Or do they intend to ship potato with 2.2.16? Potato will probably ship with a patched 2.2.15 (i386 anyways), the changelog should say if you have the version you want. later, Bruce
