Hi,
which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
a more or less critical server, those that have active security
support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
somewhere?
--
(Please Cc: me, I'm not on the list.)
Thanks,
Feri.
Hi,
On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> somewhere?
The answer is at http://kernel.org/
You're welcome,
Xav
Xavier Bestel <[email protected]> writes:
> On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
>
>> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
>> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
>> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
>> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
>> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
>> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
>> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
>> somewhere?
>
> The answer is at http://kernel.org/
Not quite, at least I can't find 2.6.23.y there, even though that
branch seems to be maintained...
--
Thanks,
Feri.
and 2.6.22.y too
On 2/12/08, Ferenc Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Xavier Bestel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> >
> >> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> >> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> >> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> >> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> >> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> >> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> >> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> >> somewhere?
> >
> > The answer is at http://kernel.org/
>
> Not quite, at least I can't find 2.6.23.y there, even though that
> branch seems to be maintained...
> --
> Thanks,
> Feri.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Thanks,
Oliver
On mar, 2008-02-12 at 22:18 +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Xavier Bestel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> >
> >> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> >> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> >> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> >> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> >> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> >> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> >> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> >> somewhere?
> >
> > The answer is at http://kernel.org/
>
> Not quite, at least I can't find 2.6.23.y there, even though that
> branch seems to be maintained...
Ah yes, sorry.
Maybe you should monitor ftp://ftp.eu.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
then.
Xav
On Feb 12, 2008 4:18 PM, Ferenc Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Xavier Bestel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> >
> >> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> >> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> >> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> >> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> >> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> >> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> >> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> >> somewhere?
> >
> > The answer is at http://kernel.org/
>
> Not quite, at least I can't find 2.6.23.y there, even though that
> branch seems to be maintained...
2.6.16.x is still maintained (2.6.16.60 was recently released).
2.6.22.x is still maintained but Greg KH is apparently going to be
ending his duties on it after the next release or so. There is some
confusion as to whether Willy Tarreau will be taking on the 2.6.22.x
tree once Greg is done, Willy?:
http://lwn.net/Articles/268003/
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Stable_2.6_Branches
2.6.23.x and 2.6.24.x are obviously quite active for [email protected]
When Willy go in 2.6.22.y, then I help it, so far as I 'm possible.
On 2/12/08, Mike Snitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 4:18 PM, Ferenc Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Xavier Bestel <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> > >
> > >> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> > >> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> > >> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> > >> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> > >> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> > >> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> > >> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> > >> somewhere?
> > >
> > > The answer is at http://kernel.org/
> >
> > Not quite, at least I can't find 2.6.23.y there, even though that
> > branch seems to be maintained...
>
> 2.6.16.x is still maintained (2.6.16.60 was recently released).
>
> 2.6.22.x is still maintained but Greg KH is apparently going to be
> ending his duties on it after the next release or so. There is some
> confusion as to whether Willy Tarreau will be taking on the 2.6.22.x
> tree once Greg is done, Willy?:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/268003/
> http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Stable_2.6_Branches
>
> 2.6.23.x and 2.6.24.x are obviously quite active for [email protected]
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Thanks,
Oliver
Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> somewhere?
I would say:
a) the kernel your distro provides,
b) if you're not using a kernel provided by your distribution, the
newest kernel from kernel.org (there are some older, still maintaned
kernels with security fixes, too).
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:37:54PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 4:18 PM, Ferenc Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Xavier Bestel <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > On mar, 2008-02-12 at 21:27 +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote:
> > >
> > >> which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> > >> time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> > >> Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> > >> a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> > >> support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> > >> 2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> > >> attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> > >> somewhere?
> > >
> > > The answer is at http://kernel.org/
> >
> > Not quite, at least I can't find 2.6.23.y there, even though that
> > branch seems to be maintained...
>
> 2.6.16.x is still maintained (2.6.16.60 was recently released).
>
> 2.6.22.x is still maintained but Greg KH is apparently going to be
> ending his duties on it after the next release or so. There is some
> confusion as to whether Willy Tarreau will be taking on the 2.6.22.x
> tree once Greg is done, Willy?:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/268003/
> http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Stable_2.6_Branches
Huh? I never said that! Maybe I did not explain myself well, but that
was not what I was saying. I was simply saying that the good news about
Greg keeping 2.6.22.y open was that I'd throw my 2.6.20.y away and rely
on his tree instead.
I'm not really sure there's a need for 2.6.22 for a longer time. I did
that for 2.6.20 because .21 was crappy, people did not want to jump to
the fresh new 2.6.22 and it was unfair to expect Greg&Chris to maintain
3 versions in parallel, it's already cool to have two of them.
2.6.23.y looks very good to me, so I don't see what particular reason
people would have not to switch right now. But if there is a very good
reason (not motivated by unfixed regressions) and *if* it does not take
me too many hours a week, I'm not against this idea since I'm still
using 2.6.22 on some machines right now. But don't expect too many
releases though.
> 2.6.23.x and 2.6.24.x are obviously quite active for [email protected]
Regards,
Willy
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:37:14PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Wagner Ferenc wrote:
>
> >which are the "currently active Linux kernel versions" at any point in
> >time? The quote is taken from http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/29.
> >Or more precisely: which are the "stable" versions I can depend on for
> >a more or less critical server, those that have active security
> >support or receive at least critical bugfixes? I know about the
> >2.6.2[34].y stable git trees, but I wonder how long will those receive
> >attention (that is, security fixes). Can I find a written policy
> >somewhere?
>
> I would say:
>
> a) the kernel your distro provides,
OK for this one
> b) if you're not using a kernel provided by your distribution, the
> newest kernel from kernel.org
Hummm... he said "a more or less critical server, those that have active
security support or receive at least critical bugfixes". So he does not
want surprizes :-)
> (there are some older, still maintaned kernels with security fixes, too).
I would suggest stable - N-1 for most usages. 2.6.24.y is open, 2.6.23.y is
supposed to be good. The advantage when you proceed like this is that you
can jump from an older kernel to a more recent one which has already got its
share of fixes and is still maintained for some time.
Generally, I would trust Greg when he drops an old kernel, it means that he's
confident enough in the next one.
Willy
Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> I would suggest stable - N-1 for most usages. 2.6.24.y is open, 2.6.23.y is
> supposed to be good. The advantage when you proceed like this is that you
> can jump from an older kernel to a more recent one which has already got its
> share of fixes and is still maintained for some time.
>
> Generally, I would trust Greg when he drops an old kernel, it means that he's
> confident enough in the next one.
Thanks for the useful (and concise) summary and sharing your thoughts
on the matter. Now my only question is: how can I learn that Greg
updated or dropped a kernel without following LKML (which my time
unfortunately does not permit). kernel-announce doesn't seem to
mention such events...
--
Regards,
Feri.
"Mike Snitzer" <[email protected]> writes:
> 2.6.23.x and 2.6.24.x are obviously quite active for [email protected]
What is [email protected]? That sounds promising. The closest I
could find is [email protected].
--
Thanks,
Feri.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 08:28:06AM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest stable - N-1 for most usages. 2.6.24.y is open, 2.6.23.y is
> > supposed to be good. The advantage when you proceed like this is that you
> > can jump from an older kernel to a more recent one which has already got its
> > share of fixes and is still maintained for some time.
> >
> > Generally, I would trust Greg when he drops an old kernel, it means that he's
> > confident enough in the next one.
>
> Thanks for the useful (and concise) summary and sharing your thoughts
> on the matter. Now my only question is: how can I learn that Greg
> updated or dropped a kernel without following LKML (which my time
> unfortunately does not permit). kernel-announce doesn't seem to
> mention such events...
Compare the release dates. If you see the latest 2.6.23.y released a week
ago and nothing equivalent for 2.6.22.y, chances are that there will not
be newer ones. Also, Greg announces his intentions to stop in each announce.
Last he stated that 2.6.22.17 (and finally 18) was most likely the last one.
Willy
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:32:03 +0100 Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> "Mike Snitzer" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 2.6.23.x and 2.6.24.x are obviously quite active for [email protected]
>
> What is [email protected]? That sounds promising. The closest I
> could find is [email protected].
[email protected] is the mailing address to send patches that
should be applied to a stable kernel series. From the
MAINTAINERS file:
STABLE BRANCH:
P: Greg Kroah-Hartman
M: [email protected]
P: Chris Wright
M: [email protected]
L: [email protected]
S: Maintained
---
~Randy