From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KLhun-0007d2-RF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:14:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 86F2FE0781; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E658E0781 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF51D64216 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.432 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TGT2U2wC5H5V for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9479565FA9 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KLhqk-0001HN-P2 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:02 +0000 Received: from athedsl-4370504.home.otenet.gr ([79.130.32.56]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:02 +0000 Received: from realnc by athedsl-4370504.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:02 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: kernel 2.6.25-r6 oddities; is this kernel really ready for stable? Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:04:58 +0300 Message-ID: References: <9acccfe50807230952y795535cck52a8872d42b805c6@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-4370504.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080715) In-Reply-To: <9acccfe50807230952y795535cck52a8872d42b805c6@mail.gmail.com> Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: d79e5ac1-0056-4800-a680-83e6c537bf52 X-Archives-Hash: c59c227d5dca4896c9376096ea4e5efc Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > I run gentoo x86 stable, so that I usually avoid this sort of thing. > > This kernel, however, looks balky to me, because it's reporting > warnings and other oddities during compilation. I don't like warnings > at any time, and with the kernel's make wrappers cleaning up the > output they tend to stand out. > > Here's what I get: > -- various type/attribute warnings > -- reports of deprecated elements > -- a report of "section mismatches", and instructions to use "make > CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y" to find details. > > All that being said, the compilation completes, and I can boot it. I > don't know the cause, but I have been unable to get vmware-server > running on it, and I'm going back to the previous kernel for that > reason. I hope you're not implying that a kernel should not be declared stable simply because a vmware product lags behind in kernel support? vmware 4 lacks support for kernel 2.6 alltogether, maybe we should only have 2.4 stable because of that.