LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-19-2006, 10:26 PM   #181
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31

There is NO way 2.6 is going to be default now...

11 is way too close, he, no, any developer at ALL, would never make a change as drastic as 2.4->2.6 this close to a release.
 
Old 06-19-2006, 10:48 PM   #182
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,808

Rep: Reputation: 234Reputation: 234Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
any developer at ALL, would never make a change as drastic as 2.4->2.6 this close to a release.
Yeah, that's what I think too. Pat seems to be extremely cautious about this stuff, despite an earlier Changelog.txt entry saying that Slack 11 would ship with 2.6 as the standard kernel.

Slackware has been "2.6 friendly" for ages now, so from what I can tell the only thing holding Pat to 2.4 is the perceived instability of 2.6. Things are still happening too fast in 2.6 for a supposed "stable" kernel branch.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 04:22 AM   #183
berVi
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Posts: 57

Rep: Reputation: 15
its not that important to have 2.6 by default. if you really want to use ur computer, you'll compile your own. don't ya?

for example. when i tried to use the 2.6.15 (as far as i remember) kernel in the testing dir, after install i was unable to use my keyboard or anything. i couldnt recover the system, so i installed with 2.4, compiled my fresh kernel (currently using 2.6.17 which i needed for the bcm43xx driver - no need of ndiswrapper & acerhk), and thats all. its hard for the first time _only_.

Last edited by berVi; 06-20-2006 at 07:20 AM.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 05:24 AM   #184
danieldk
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
There is NO way 2.6 is going to be default now...

11 is way too close, he, no, any developer at ALL, would never make a change as drastic as 2.4->2.6 this close to a release.
I think there is a good chance that we will see a dual kernel approach, like in Slackware 8.0. The primary chance compared with 10.2 would be that a kernel-modules-2.6.x package would have to be added to a/ (in addition to kernel-modules-2.4.x), and maybe some extra 2.6.x modules to the initrd image, because the default test26.s image does not cut it on all hardware (or just a kernel with more precompiled SCSI and SATA drivers).
 
Old 06-20-2006, 05:58 AM   #185
the_real_absinthe
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2006
Distribution: slackware linux
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: 15
well, a dual kernel aproach could be a "nice" solution. consider also that Pats said:
Quote:
a/glibc-solibs-2.3.6-i486-3.tgz: Recompiled against 2.4.32 and 2.6.15.6
kernel headers. Yes, I have seen that shiny-looking glibc-2.4 release on
ftp.gnu.org, but glibc-2.4 completely drops support for linuxthreads, and
therefore will not support vanilla Linux 2.4.x kernels. I don't think
we're quite ready for that yet around here.
what's the meaning of? he used both headers to compile glibc? will we have 2 versions of glibc precompiled tgz? I don't understand...

M
 
Old 06-20-2006, 06:38 AM   #186
danieldk
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_real_absinthe
what's the meaning of? he used both headers to compile glibc? will we have 2 versions of glibc precompiled tgz? I don't understand...
2.6 is used for building the NPTL version of glibc (and 2.4 for the good ol' LinuxThreads version).
 
Old 06-20-2006, 08:59 AM   #187
the_real_absinthe
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2006
Distribution: slackware linux
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieldk
2.6 is used for building the NPTL version of glibc (and 2.4 for the good ol' LinuxThreads version).
I've had a look at my 10.2 doinst.sh script for glibc! now it's clear, thanx!
 
Old 06-20-2006, 09:52 AM   #188
jimX86
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 233
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 36
It wouldn't break my heart to see one more release with 2.4 as the default and 2.6 as an option. Doesn't Debian still default to 2.4? What difference does it make as long as 2.6 is a clear option?

I prefer to build what I want myself on top of a stable Slackware. It's reassuring to know that the mistakes I'll be fixing will be my own.

Everything comes gradually and at its appointed hour. --Ovid
 
Old 06-20-2006, 10:09 AM   #189
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
2.6 ISN'T a clear option though. For some reason Pat does not build in reiserfs support into the kernel, and any newbie wanting to install 2.6 wouldn't know that he must make his own initrd.

Also, glibc has MASSIVE benefits when compiled against a 2.6 kernel, and glibc 2.4>2.3 in every single way, but yet Pat still can't ship it because he wants 2.4 as default, same thing with hotplug, which is now deprecated, yet still ships in slackware, and very outdated udev, and 2.4 is old and stale, and hasn't had an update in 7 months.

There have been many developments in 7 months, and 2.6 is clearly the kernel to use, for everybody, servers, desktops, databases, everybody.

Since the VAST majority of users would prefer a 2.6 kernel(even if they don't think so, or if they don't want to believe it), 2.6 should be the default, with 2.4(and outdated hotplug/udev/glibc/etc) as an option for people with hardware not supported by 2.6. That is the way that debian does it, as far as I can remember.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 10:58 AM   #190
davidsrsb
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware 13.37 current
Posts: 770

Rep: Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_real_absinthe
I've had a look at my 10.2 doinst.sh script for glibc! now it's clear, thanx!
Are you saying that the glibc version installed is kernel version dependent?
If so, what happens to a 2.4.32 machine that is updated to 2.6.16.20 AFTER glibc is installed?

Switching kernels has other issues like the kernel-headers issue.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 11:35 AM   #191
jimX86
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 233
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
2.6 ISN'T a clear option though. For some reason Pat does not build in reiserfs support into the kernel, and any newbie wanting to install 2.6 wouldn't know that he must make his own initrd.
I have ZERO patience for people too lazy to read the release notes, but I do see your point. Maybe a dual kernel choice would be more clear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
That is the way that debian does it, as far as I can remember.
I don't suppose it much matters, but I think 2.4 is the default and 2.6 is a boot menu option. That might just be to provide a smoother upgrade path. You can choose either one.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 12:15 PM   #192
danieldk
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 150

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
Also, glibc has MASSIVE benefits when compiled against a 2.6 kernel, and glibc 2.4>2.3 in every single way, but yet Pat still can't ship it because he wants 2.4 as default, same thing with hotplug, which is now deprecated, yet still ships in slackware, and very outdated udev, and 2.4 is old and stale, and hasn't had an update in 7 months.
I can only agree here. Even the enterprise distributions have switched to 2.6.x last year. I know that some people in this forum have high disregards for 'the enterprise Linuxes'. But still, this is what companies run on servers and big iron, and it works very stable there.

Quote:
Since the VAST majority of users would prefer a 2.6 kernel(even if they don't think so, or if they don't want to believe it), 2.6 should be the default, with 2.4(and outdated hotplug/udev/glibc/etc) as an option for people with hardware not supported by 2.6. That is the way that debian does it, as far as I can remember.
Yup, a lot of opportunities are missed out. E.g. udev plus HAL provide good automounting on KDE, and the next Xfce version (with Thunar). I am not saying that it should be mandatory, but it is a good addition that many people will like, and has been part of the replacement GNOMEs for a while. And these technologies are also used in enterprise Linuxes. The trick is to settle on one version, and stabilizing it.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 03:12 PM   #193
the_real_absinthe
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2006
Distribution: slackware linux
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsrsb
Are you saying that the glibc version installed is kernel version dependent?
If so, what happens to a 2.4.32 machine that is updated to 2.6.16.20 AFTER glibc is installed?

Switching kernels has other issues like the kernel-headers issue.
no: simply glibc is provided with both options and stored in 2 different folders. I haven't look to docs so I don't know how the kernel can use automagically the right version.
but no problem appears switching between kernel versions: I use both 2.6 (my default choice) and 2.4 (as safer choice during every first installation or during kernel recompilation - a kernel panic is always waiting behind next corner ) and all goes smooth.

NOTE: the only issue with kernel headers is that you must preserve headers used to compile glibc against.

--> so now, want can we say? if they are compiled against both kernel versions can we say that both 2.4 headers and 2.6 headers provided with slack are a good choice?! uh?!

troubles can (_NOT_ will) come only if you try to use a kernel version newer than kernel headers version (linus said this some time ago...)

M
 
Old 06-20-2006, 08:36 PM   #194
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,280

Rep: Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588Reputation: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimX86
Doesn't Debian still default to 2.4? What difference does it make as long as 2.6 is a clear option?
Yep, Debian sarge comes with the 2.4x kernel, but, Etch the upcoming next stable release of Debian ships with the 2.6x kernel as the default.
 
Old 06-20-2006, 08:53 PM   #195
theoffset
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: Guadalajara, Jal, Mexico
Distribution: Slackware Linux
Posts: 211

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
Since the VAST majority of users would prefer a 2.6 kernel(even if they don't think so, or if they don't want to believe it), 2.6 should be the default, with 2.4(and outdated hotplug/udev/glibc/etc) as an option for people with hardware not supported by 2.6. That is the way that debian does it, as far as I can remember.
AFAIK there shouldn't be any old hardware supported by 2.4 which isn't supported by 2.6, but I keep hearing that there are. Does anybody has got any pointers on this? I'm just curious.

Also, I think the main reason why 2.4 is still default is because of stability. You know that Pat prefers stability over performance and 2.4 is definitely more stable (in both meanings) than 2.6. Although 2.6 should be reaching a stable-enough point pretty sun (spec. the 2.6.16.x branch)
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
advice, chat, far, general, upgrade


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slack 10.2 slack 10.2 ran xserver after all on sata with via board devafree LinuxQuestions.org Member Success Stories 5 05-31-2006 12:54 AM
Frozen-Bubble(from slack 8.2) Not Running in slack 9 bongski55 Slackware 8 01-02-2006 05:10 PM
Slack 10.1 will a Slack 10 Wine pkg work? acummings Slackware 1 03-25-2005 05:55 AM
Using Slack 10's 2.6.7 kernel packages on Slack 10.1? SocialEngineer Slackware 1 03-05-2005 12:53 PM
cd rom error on installation media (With both slack 9,1 and slack 10) busbarn Slackware - Installation 6 07-15-2004 04:03 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration