LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   3.8.y kernel declared dead. (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/3-8-y-kernel-declared-dead-4175461663/)

hitest 05-13-2013 09:11 AM

I am happy with whatever Pat decides to do. I am happy with the 3.8.13 kernel in slackware-current. Everything is working well from my perspective.

Code:

Mon May 13 06:11:15 UTC 2013
a/kernel-firmware-20130512git-noarch-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-generic-3.8.13-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-generic-smp-3.8.13_smp-i686-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-huge-3.8.13-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-huge-smp-3.8.13_smp-i686-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-modules-3.8.13-i486-1.txz:  Upgraded.
a/kernel-modules-smp-3.8.13_smp-i686-1.txz:  Upgraded.
d/kernel-headers-3.8.13_smp-x86-1.txz:  Upgraded.
k/kernel-source-3.8.13_smp-noarch-1.txz:  Upgraded.
extra/linux-3.8.13-nosmp-sdk/\*:  Upgraded.
isolinux/initrd.img:  Rebuilt.
kernels/*:  Upgraded.
testing/source/config-testing-3.4.45/*:  Added.
testing/source/config-testing-3.9.2/*:  Added.
usb-and-pxe-installers/usbboot.img:  Rebuilt.


willysr 05-13-2013 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willysr (Post 4949790)
i do agree with Linux Kernel 3.8.x for now
i'm using VMWare here and i think it's broken if we used a combination of Linux Kernel 3.9 and GCC 4.8 to rebuild the modules
it worked with Linux Kernel 3.9 and GCC 4.7 or Linux Kernel 3.8 and GCC 4.8

Now VMWare Workstation works well with Linux Kernel 3.9.2 and GCC 4.8.0

jtsn 05-13-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL (Post 4950114)
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it. :)

Local exploits aren't a threat in my use cases.

Martinus2u 05-13-2013 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 4950086)
I don't know why they didn't make 3.8.x LTS. I don't like this decision,

There is no decision NOT to turn a kernel release into LTS. You get an LTS release if and only if a volunteer steps up to do it. Feel free to volunteer for 3.8.

Quote:

I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.
no, see above

volkerdi 05-13-2013 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 4950086)
I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.

It used to be (in 2.6 kernels) that an odd third digit in the version meant it was a development branch, but since the kernel development model changed I don't think odd/even carries any special meaning now.

jtsn 05-13-2013 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkerdi (Post 4950270)
It used to be (in 2.6 kernels) that an odd third digit in the version meant it was a development branch,

Which led to the Linux 2.4 dilemma: People wanted features included into the stable kernel, so they backported/added features to the stable 2.4 branch and preferred it. Meanwhile kernel developers couldn't change groundbreaking things in 2.4 without breaking compatibility, so 2.5 diverted further and further from what was used in the real world. (The same thing happened to FreeBSD 4, where sponsors developed new code for the -STABLE branch instead of the next major version.)

Shortly after renaming 2.5 into 2.6 and declaring it stable, the Linux kernel developers decided against a 2.7 branch to not create a new 2.4-style issue. Since then odd numbers have no special meaning anymore.

the3dfxdude 05-13-2013 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL (Post 4950013)
Shipping 3.8 will mean no more security updates for that branch and any new vulnerabilities that come along will either force an update to a new branch which may be in god only knows what state, or leave you vulnerable if you can't move forward for any reason.

Shipping 3.4 will allow for new security fixes to be applied while remaining within the same kernel branch (subject to Greg K-H's best backporting efforts)

If it is "back-ported" to 3.4, then that means the same fix can be applied to 3.8. This is assuming that the fix originated from something newer. The only thing that promotes a version "LTS" is someone declaring it is so. I'd much rather just use something that already works and make an intelligent decision on what to do than blindly follow the flurry of CC:linux-stable.

Skaperen 05-13-2013 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL (Post 4950013)
Shipping 3.8 will mean no more security updates for that branch and any new vulnerabilities that come along will either force an update to a new branch which may be in god only knows what state, or leave you vulnerable if you can't move forward for any reason.

Shipping 3.4 will allow for new security fixes to be applied while remaining within the same kernel branch (subject to Greg K-H's best backporting efforts), but will lose us approx 1 years worth of kernel development progress. At this point in time 3.9 is pretty much an unknown (it's meeting my minimal needs, but I don't really put it under any strain).

The ugly truth of the linux kernel development model is that there are no good choices here. The *BSDs do this sort of thing so much better.

Pat has to choose the best of a bad set of choices. If it were my choice I think I'd go with 3.4 on the principle that anyone who wants anything more recent can always upgrade it themselves and it keeps the options open.

Given how bad 3.8 is for USB, I'd worry that 3.4 it going to cut USB 3.0 completely for a lot of people. but this is based on the rumors since I have not tested 3.4. I'm going to try out 3.9 this weekend. If it is stable, then I'd put my hat into the 3.9 ring. But is 3.9 an "LTS" kernel line?

Skaperen 05-13-2013 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 4950086)
I don't know why they didn't make 3.8.x LTS. I don't like this decision, and I think it will affect some distributions.

I doubt 3.9 will be LTS, as I think only even numbered kernels have this possibility.

Maybe they need to stabilize their LTS numbering.

TobiSGD 05-14-2013 04:53 AM

There is no LTS numbering. As was pointed out earlier already, LTS versions only appear if someone steps up to maintain them. GKH is not willing to support more than two LTS versions (understandable, I would think), which are currently 3.0 and 3.4, IIRC. So if he decides to let 3.0 go then we will (probably) get a new LTS, or if a different person steps up for the task. release schedules or version numbers are not involved at all in deciding which kernel gets LTS status.

My two cent: Keep the 3.8 kernel, as 13.37 has kept 2.6.37. For people that need newer kernels there is already a config for 3.9 in /testing, for people that want a LTS kernel there is a 3.4 config in /testing. As a Slackware user one should be knowledgeable enough to decide which one to use.

guanx 05-14-2013 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaperen (Post 4950560)
Given how bad 3.8 is for USB, I'd worry that 3.4 it going to cut USB 3.0 completely for a lot of people. but this is based on the rumors since I have not tested 3.4. I'm going to try out 3.9 this weekend. If it is stable, then I'd put my hat into the 3.9 ring. But is 3.9 an "LTS" kernel line?

If you try Linux 3.9, dial-up networking via bluetooth will give you suprise.

D1ver 05-14-2013 05:51 AM

If there are no kernel updates to the stable tree after it's released I don't see the big deal of shipping a kernel that isn't LTS. If you have to compile updates yourself you can just as well jump to a different kernel branch.

I think it's a good idea to stick with 3.8 if it's well tested in -current.

guanx 05-14-2013 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D1ver (Post 4950765)
...
I think it's a good idea to stick with 3.8 if it's well tested in -current.

As I have already pointed out twice the 3.8 kernels crash on normal bluetooth operations. Because 3.8 is dead this will never be fixed.

H_TeXMeX_H 05-14-2013 08:20 AM

I think it's definitely a good idea NOT to stick with 3.8 in current for all of the above mentioned reasons.

I didn't know that GKH volunteered to maintain LTS kernels, I though he was appointed. Well, in that case, it is his choice. I have never coded or maintained kernel code, and I'm pretty sure you wont want me to either.

Citramonum 05-14-2013 08:42 AM

3.8 is dead today, 3.9 will be dead a month later, there is no much difference. What is not good idea in my opinion it is sticking with so called LTS since the last one is more than year old and no one knows when the next will be. I vote for Linux 3.11 for Workgroups to be next LTS.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.