From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HXzZ8-0003tV-K3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:53:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l31CqbY2001109; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:52:37 GMT Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.21]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l31CmPCn028899 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:48:25 GMT Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 75ED1206A05 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:48:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655C62069F5 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:48:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de (account wevah [139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTPSA id 21741288 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:48:25 +0200 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Any consequences to package.mask'ing newer kernels? Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:48:18 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20070331055510.GA29960@waltdnes.org> <200703311611.42649.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <460FBFF9.8060503@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <460FBFF9.8060503@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704011448.18361.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: b694654e-14e1-42f9-8038-cd77686e3522 X-Archives-Hash: f7d8e47379f45277b346752b20c2d45d On Sonntag, 1. April 2007, b.n. wrote: > Hemmann, Volker Armin ha scritto: > > In almost every kernel release a security problem is found, that is fixed > > in a stable release. > > Stable release? AFAIK, *all* 2.6.x releases are stable releases. No, they aren't. There are the 'normal' releases (for example 2.6.20) and the 'stable' releases which fix important bugs and security holes (like, for example 2.6.20.2). > The > days of double trees (2.4.x and 2.5.x) are gone. Today we have at least 4 trees. Linus. Morton. The 'stable releases' (2.6.XY.Z) Bunk's 2.6.16.XY > > Which risk? Which mess? There is not a risk, if you use oldconfig. > > oldconfig doesn't always work well between major releases (2.6.x vs > 2.6.x+1). > I works like a charm for me.... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list