LWN: Comments on "Stable kernels 2.6.25.14 and 2.6.26.1"

Slackware

NAR — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:26:57 +0000

Well, the -stable maintainers stated that these kernels are for

Those who want to follow the latest kernel.org releases and not rely on a distribution for their kernel versions.
For distributions to base releases on, and to pick and choose patches from.

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.

Slackware

odie — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:31:16 +0000

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.

Slack

ciol — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:34:29 +0000

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.

Slack

gvy — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:13:37 +0000

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. :)

Slackware

ciol — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:06:32 +0000

If we have Slackware, should we use one of them?
Is it safe to keep 2.6.24.5?