| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable kernels 2.6.25.14 and 2.6.26.1
The 2.6.25.14 and 2.6.26.1 stable kernel updates are out; both
contain a fairly long list of fixes all over the kernel tree.
(Log in to post comments)
Slackware Posted Aug 4, 2008 7:06 UTC (Mon) by ciol (guest, #52160) [Link] If we have Slackware, should we use one of them? Is it safe to keep 2.6.24.5?
Slack Posted Aug 4, 2008 8:13 UTC (Mon) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] If you have Slackware, you should know better... if you find yourself asking, well, you might just be better off with something else by now. :)
Slack Posted Aug 4, 2008 8:34 UTC (Mon) by ciol (guest, #52160) [Link] I can't know if it is not clearly written in an official documentation, or if everyone says what you said without clearly answer my question.
Slackware Posted Aug 4, 2008 9:31 UTC (Mon) by odie (guest, #738) [Link] Well, I haven't paid much attention to these particular kernels, but I'll give some general tips. Patrick hasn't issued any security warnings about the kernel in ages (february, I think), so he thinks it's ok. On the other hand, if you are already compiling your own kernels, upgrading is pretty painless unless you have troublesome patches or modules. However, the point of compiling yourself is often to minimize the security impact of bugs by only including the features you really need. So if you are doing this you are probably less at risk already.
Slackware Posted Aug 4, 2008 19:26 UTC (Mon) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Well, the -stable maintainers stated that these kernels are for
I guess that the second is not relevant to you, for the first they say: should always update to the latest -stable kernel update. I think if you don't want to follow the latest kernel.org kernel, then the proper process is to ignore the releases of -stable kernels and use what your distributor has packed for you. If you do want to follow the latest, then you should upgrade.
|
|
||||||||||||