| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 releasedStable kernel 2.6.25.3 releasedPosted May 11, 2008 3:41 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released
... anyone running 2.6.24 should also move up to 2.6.25 at this time if possible. What, exactly, is the motivation for moving up? I've heard mixed feelings about the reliability of 2.6.25[.x]. Thanks!
(Log in to post comments)
upgrade kernels? continued support. Posted May 11, 2008 9:23 UTC (Sun) by undefined (guest, #40876) [Link] why upgrade from 2.6.24.x to 2.6.25.3? same reason you would upgrade from 2.6.25.2 to 2.6.25.3. same reason enterprises pay for Linux. continued support. unless someone is backporting security fixes to your current kernel revision, you should consider doing it yourself or upgrading to 2.6.25.3. or maybe you've done a risk analysis and determined that an upgrade to a more recent kernel (2.6.24.x -> 2.6.25.3) is "riskier" (higher probability of disruption/failure) than a security breach with your current version. i want to personally thank Oliver Pinter for his continued maintenance of 2.6.22 [1]. the stable version of linux-vserver is currently stuck at 2.6.22 (due to accommodating the new container code in later kernels), so i'm forced to stick with 2.6.22 for right now, but Oliver's "op" patchset has made that a supported possibility. i only stumbled on his patchset because after the stable team dropped support for 2.6.22, i searched for Willy Tarreau's patchset because he said he was going to rebase against it [2], and in desperation i Googled for "2.6.22.20" [3], though i had heard nothing about it while regularly reading lwn and kerneltrap (but it now appears that i haven't been paying enough attention to the "Kernel Trees" section of the weekly edition). i've been compiling his releases since 2.6.22.21-op1, but honestly i haven't ran one yet because there hasn't been a pressing enough need, and now that it includes security fixes, i'm waiting for a good time for "planned downtime" to reboot into the latest. so consider upgrading to 2.6.25.3 unless a great individual like Oliver Pinter is supporting 2.6.24 (or whatever your version) with backported fixes (security or otherwise). [1] http://repo.or.cz/w/linux-2.6.22.y-op-patches.git [2] http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/11/6/... [3] http://www.google.com/search?q=2.6.22.20
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 3:49 UTC (Mon) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] > I've heard mixed feelings about the reliability of 2.6.25[.x]. And what are those feelings you have heard? Do you have any bugs you have reported for this kernel series? Personally, I think it is one of the most used kernel versions in a very long time as both Fedora and OpenSuSE have based their latest releases on it. Don't you think that the hundreds of thousands of users using those releases already would be a good enough reason to feel good? And becides 2.6.24 isn't supported anymore by anyone that I know of, so if you feel that the security problems posted are not relevant for you (which might be totally the case), feel free to stay, but note that no developers are there to help you out if you have problems :(
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 6:11 UTC (Mon) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link] >>> And becides 2.6.24 isn't supported anymore by anyone that I know of2.6.24 is the kernel of the last Ubuntu version 8.04 (Long Term Support) and it will be supported three years (desktop version) or five years (server version).
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 6:14 UTC (Mon) by interalia (subscriber, #26615) [Link]
I think 2.6.24 is the kernel in current Debian testing, so that version willll be in the next
release ("lenny") unless they move to 2.6.25 soon.
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 8:39 UTC (Mon) by tbm (subscriber, #7049) [Link] 2.6.25 is in Debian unstable already.
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 15:16 UTC (Mon) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] >2.6.24 is the kernel of the last Ubuntu version 8.04 (Long Term Support) > and it will be supported three years (desktop version) or five years >(server version). That's great if you are a Ubunutu customer, but that is not going to help you out if you are a kernel.org 2.6.24 user as the Ubuntu developers do not contribute their fixes/changes upstream, and their 2.6.24 kernel is very heavily modified from what the kernel.org version looks like.
kernel.org kernels on Debian Posted May 12, 2008 17:12 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] It's pretty easy to keep up to date with 2.6.x.y on Debian. sudo apt-get install ketchup make-kpkg Keep an unpacked copy of a recent version in your home directory, then: cd linux-* ketchup -r make oldconfig make-kpkg --rootcmd fakeroot clean make-kpkg --rootcmd fakeroot kernel_image cd .. and sudo dpkg -i to install the new kernel package. Haven't tried this on Ubuntu.
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 17:55 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It's less than a month old, which makes me less confidant in it than I'd like. Gentoo, at least, likes to leave a kernel marked as "testing" for 3 weeks to collect bug reports before deciding what needs to be followed up on before marking it "stable". In general, this has more to do with getting other packages updated for changes (e.g., /sys/block/* being symlinks) than kernel bugs. Of course, these aren't something to complain to kernel developers about, but neither can they be ignored when choosing a kernel version. For example, old versions of x11-drm use flush_agp_mappings, which has been removed in 2.6.25, while newer versions of x11-drm don't work for some people. So, if you happen to have particular hardware and particular external module versions for it, you have to wait for stuff to happen that's outside of the kernel process before you can switch to 2.6.25. Regardless of the internal quality of a kernel release, there's the question of whether it will trigger bugs in other packages. FWIW, Gentoo just released a 2.6.24-based kernel last night, backporting at least one of the security fixes from 2.6.25.3.
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 20:30 UTC (Mon) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] And what are those feelings you have heard? Do you have any bugs you have reported for this kernel series? Here's someone else's comment about having read more than the usual number of bug reports for 2.6.25 on LKML. Also, According to the Kernel Newbies 2.6.25 Page, there seem to be lots of new additions and major revisions, to which I'm a little nervous about upgrading right at the moment without waiting a few weeks or so. I still don't feel that my question was answered by anyone above. Regardless, I've downloaded 2.6.25.3, and I'll give it a try on my desktop system shortly (after compiling and installing it). If I have trouble with it, then I'll report issues to the LKML.
Stable kernel 2.6.25.3 released Posted May 12, 2008 21:30 UTC (Mon) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] 2.6.24 just felt uncomfortable with all those changes that gone into libata—and as such, the reports that come trickling in on lkml. There were some 100 more patches (287) between 2.6.23–2.6.24 than 2.6.22–2.6.23 (138) 2.6.24–2.6.25 (189).
|
|||||||||||