Why doesn't slackware 14 include linux kernel 3.4.x?

supermaximus79 · 06-27-2012, 05:03 AM

Why doesn't slackware 14 include linux kernel 3.4.x?
The problem is that i have video card amd radeon HD 7750 and native amd drivers with catalist 12.6 beta don't work with xorg 7.7 at all. I red that kernel 3.4.x does have support for radeon hd 77xx series video cards. So it'll be nice to include linux kernel 3.4.x to Slackware 14 distribution, because right now i can't work properly.

Thanks a lot.
Max

Didier Spaier · 06-27-2012, 05:43 AM

As stated in another thread (by AlienBob IIRC) this is because the choice was made to install a kernel which will benefit of a long term support.

But it is always possible to install a newer kernel, taking as a basis one of the config files provided in Slackware and running "make oldconfig".

It's even possible that Slackware 14 will ship with a config file for a newer kernel in /testing.

Now for components of the X stack they are easy to upgrade using the Slackbuilds provided in /source.

zerouno · 06-27-2012, 07:10 AM

From the slackware 13.37 announcement:

Quote:

Slackware 13.37 uses the 2.6.37.6 Linux kernel, and also ships with 2.6.38.4 kernels for those who want to run the latest (and also includes configuration files for 2.6.35.12 and 2.6.39-rc4).

maybe a solution: 3.2 in slackware/, 3.4 in extra/ and a configuration file for 3.5-rc4

Didier Spaier · 06-27-2012, 07:21 AM

I very much doubt that Pat be eager to include a config file for a RC, even in /testing

onebuck · 06-27-2012, 07:25 AM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerouno

From the slackware 13.37 announcement:

maybe a solution: 3.2 in slackware/, 3.4 in extra/ and a configuration file for 3.5-rc4

From -current changelog;

Code:

Mon Jun 25 05:17:48 UTC 2012
.
.
.
a/kernel-huge-3.2.21-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.

There should not be a problem with grabbing a new kernel then using the '.config' from 3.2.

GazL · 06-27-2012, 07:30 AM

The nature of upstream development means that whatever kernel Pat ships, it's going to be obsolete before very long. The simple truth is that you will want to update your own kernel during the lifetime of a slackware release. By shipping against the latest long-term branch by default Pat allows people the choice of either following the longterm branch updates, or chasing the bleeding edge of mainline kernel development.

IMO it's the correct choice.

Didier Spaier · 06-27-2012, 07:40 AM

@Gazl

Agreed. And the process of compiling a newer kernel is facilitated by another smart decision (IMHO) which is to ship unpatched kernels as much as possible.

catkin · 06-27-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL

The simple truth is that you will want to update your own kernel during the lifetime of a slackware release.

I've had to do it for hardware support but have not otherwise wanted to. Am I missing something?

GazL · 06-27-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catkin

I've had to do it for hardware support but have not otherwise wanted to. Am I missing something?

Ignoring the 14 months of general progress, there's also 14 months of security and reliability fixes.

Have a read of: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-vulns-399624/ If you still feel like 2.6.37.6 is a safe choice at this point, then you're a braver man than I am.

ruario · 06-27-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL

Ignoring the 14 months of general progress, there's also 14 months of security and reliability fixes.

Have a read of: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-vulns-399624/ If you still feel like 2.6.37.6 is a safe choice at this point, then you're a braver man than I am.

Thanks for that. I read the thread and still feel safe. There are only 3 issue that affect 2.6.37.6 and none of them are critical:

http://secunia.com/advisories/43496/
http://secunia.com/advisories/43522/
http://secunia.com/advisories/43594/

audriusk · 06-27-2012, 09:40 AM

Don't forget that Slackware is used on servers, where stable and well-supported system is wanted, so sticking to LTS kernel makes a lot of sense in this kind of environment.

catkin · 06-27-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL

Ignoring the 14 months of general progress, there's also 14 months of security and reliability fixes.

Have a read of: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-vulns-399624/ If you still feel like 2.6.37.6 is a safe choice at this point, then you're a braver man than I am.

Thanks GazL and ruario

For a personal computer it seems safe and stable enough -- balancing the small risk of disruption against the certainty of time required to change the kernel and the larger risk of complicating disaster recovery with a non-standard kernel.

H_TeXMeX_H · 06-27-2012, 09:59 AM

Just compile your own.

zerouno · 06-27-2012, 03:16 PM

Why slackware 13.37 have 2 kernels? Also slackware 13.0 had 2 kernels.

Slackware 11.0 had a 2.4 kernel by default, for who want to use slackware for server, and a 2.6 kernel in extra/ for who want to use slackware for workstation.

Why slackware 14.0 may not have 2?

A kernel LTS as standard kernel for who want to use slackware for server, and a non-LTS in extra/ for who want to use slackware for workstation.

Note: 2.6.37 was NOT an LTS kernel!

ReaperX7 · 06-27-2012, 03:51 PM

Slackware 14.0 is not finalized, nor is it out yet.

-Current by design only has one kernel due to the nature that it is NOT a stable branch, but more of a developer/tester/unstable branch.

Only stable branches are allocated two kernels. The default kernel is for the main release as a long term support while the kernel included in /testing is more of what was still being tested off the main kernel.org line for just such purposes of supporting hardware that may not be supported by the default long term support kernel.