[gentoo-amd64] 2.6.18 kernel

[gentoo-amd64] 2.6.18 kernel

[Mark Haney]

Is it just me or is the .18 kernel slow in getting unmasked?  I don't 
recall any other releases taking as long to be marked stable, but then I 
haven't been quite as anxious to test a new kernel as I have been for 
.18.  I'm sure people are running it, so I ask, how is it?  Has it been 
stable or is it not quite ready for us 'less than hardcore' testers? 


-- 
Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] 2.6.18 kernel

[Andrei Slavoiu]

--- Mark Haney <mhaney@ercbroadband.org> wrote:

> Is it just me or is the .18 kernel slow in getting
> unmasked?  I don't 
> recall any other releases taking as long to be
> marked stable, but then I 
> haven't been quite as anxious to test a new kernel
> as I have been for 
> .18.  I'm sure people are running it, so I ask, how
> is it?  Has it been 
> stable or is it not quite ready for us 'less than
> hardcore' testers? 

Every major upgrade of a core component has a
"tracker" opened in bugzilla. For the 2.6.18 kernel
this bug is:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148429

Look at the bugs this one depends on to figure out if
it's safe for you to try it out.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
(http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited)

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] 2.6.18 kernel

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Wednesday 01 November 2006 18:23, Mark Haney wrote:
> Is it just me or is the .18 kernel slow in getting unmasked?  I don't
> recall any other releases taking as long to be marked stable, but then I
> haven't been quite as anxious to test a new kernel as I have been for
> .18.  I'm sure people are running it, so I ask, how is it?  Has it been
> stable or is it not quite ready for us 'less than hardcore' testers?
>

it 'works for me'. That does not say much, because other people might use 
their box different, less typing than me, more downloading or stuff 
enconding...

but so far, 2.6.18 behaved civilised. No problems.

Again, for me - other people might have survived the occasional horror story.
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-amd64] Re: 2.6.18 kernel

[Duncan]

"Mark Haney" <mhaney@ercbroadband.org> posted
4548D810.3010103@ercbroadband.org, excerpted below, on  Wed, 01 Nov 2006
12:23:28 -0500:

> Is it just me or is the .18 kernel slow in getting unmasked?  I don't 
> recall any other releases taking as long to be marked stable, but then I 
> haven't been quite as anxious to test a new kernel as I have been for 
> .18.  I'm sure people are running it, so I ask, how is it?  Has it been 
> stable or is it not quite ready for us 'less than hardcore' testers?

FWIW, I handle my kernel stuff directly, downloading from kernel.org, not
thru portage.  Thus, I care not one whit about Gentoo's kernel
stabilizing.  If a new kernel.org kernel doesn't work, I just keep using
the old one until the next -rc or whatever that /does/ work. I had been
doing it that way long before I switched to Gentoo, so I just kept doing
what I had always done. The only thing I needed to do was add a kernel
entry to package.provided, so various packages in portage with a
dependency on the kernel knew it was there. Here's my package.provided
file.  Note that I use ridiculously high versions like 999, or 2.6.999 for
the kernel, so I don't have to worry about dependency version number creep:

~$cat /etc/portage/profile/package.provided
# portage always considers these packages merged,
# and won't attempt to merge them.

################################################################################
# profile related
# in profile as virtual/ssh but unneeded
net-misc/openssh-99
# in profile but unneeded
sys-apps/busybox-99
# don't use Gentoo kernels
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.999

################################################################################
# X-related
# xorg-server thinks it needs, but 100dpi better
media-fonts/font-adobe-75dpi-99
# xinit needs for default Xsession, I use kde
x11-apps/xsm-99
# don't need xterm since I use kde/konsole
x11-terms/xterm-999


################################################################################
# proprietaryware related
# imagemagick thinks it needs
media-fonts/corefonts-99


-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2.6.18 kernel

[Barry.SCHWARTZ]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1113 bytes --]

Christoph Mende <ch.mende@googlemail.com> skribis:
> On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 00:42 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> > FWIW, I handle my kernel stuff directly, downloading from kernel.org, not
> > thru portage.  Thus, I care not one whit about Gentoo's kernel
> > stabilizing.
> 
> echo "sys-kernel/vanilla-sources ~arch" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
> emerge vanilla-sources
> 
> does exactly the same, difference is that you don't have to check
> kernel.org for new released, emerge -u world does it.

I’ve found vanilla kernels to be much more reliable on my system than
Gentoo kernels (why I don’t know), and use sys-kernel/vanilla-sources
mainly for the above reason of not having to check kernel.org. Which
makes it slightly funny that, at the moment, I’m using 2.6.18.1 that I
downloaded myself from kernel.org. :)


-- 
Barry.SCHWARTZ at chemoelectric.org   http://chemoelectric.org
        Free stuff / Senpagaj varoj:  http://crudfactory.com (PDF)
'Democracies don't war; democracies are peaceful countries.' - Bush
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2.6.18 kernel

[Christoph Mende]

On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 00:42 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> FWIW, I handle my kernel stuff directly, downloading from kernel.org, not
> thru portage.  Thus, I care not one whit about Gentoo's kernel
> stabilizing.

echo "sys-kernel/vanilla-sources ~arch" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
emerge vanilla-sources

does exactly the same, difference is that you don't have to check
kernel.org for new released, emerge -u world does it.

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2.6.18 kernel

[Vladimir G. Ivanovic]

On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 10:51 -0600, Barry.SCHWARTZ@chemoelectric.org
wrote:
> I’ve found vanilla kernels to be much more reliable on my system than
> Gentoo kernels (why I don’t know), 

FYI: I have never had a problem with gentoo kernels. I have had
non-standard modules that would not compile, but updating the modules
fixed those problems.

--- Vladimir 

-- 
Vladimir G. Ivanovic <vgivanovic@comcast.net>

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] 2.6.18 kernel

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 01 November 2006 17:53, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:

> it 'works for me'. That does not say much, because other people might use
> their box different, less typing than me, more downloading or stuff
> enconding...
>
> but so far, 2.6.18 behaved civilised. No problems.

Same here. I've been running 2.6.18-gentoo-r1 since 17 Oct with no problems 
at all. I'm subscribed to five BOINC projects and this box runs 24 hours a 
day on two of those at a time; also much emerging of late.

-- 
Rgds
Peter
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list