kernels, binutils, and stable releases

Heiko Zuerker heiko at
Thu Apr 14 12:22:45 PDT 2005

> Hi. Uhm, it's not looking like kernel-2.6 is going to be stable anytime
> soon. I can't think of any reason that hlfs needs to be using 2.6. The
> only thing that depends on it is glibc's nptl, but linuxthreads works
> perfectly well too.
> For the sake of releasing something stable (in the foreseeable future)
> what do you all think about going down to kernel 2.4? When hlfs first
> started using 2.6 kernels I didn't expect the 2.6 branch to remain the
> devel branch, I expected 2.7 to be the new branch.. but that never
> happened. Grsecurity maintains a patch for 2.4 which has all the same
> features as the 2.6 patch.
> In addition to kernel 2.4, I would like to see binutils-2.16 go into
> hlfs-1.0, and we could simply use bugfix patches on binutils-2.16 until
> 2.17 is out,
> instead of following hjl binutils which is more beta and less predictable.
> Aside from that, hlfs-1.0 could use a few more apps, like bind-utils and
> other minor stuff.
> The big question here is for kernel-2.4. A pseudo_random patch for 2.4
> shouldn't take long to make.. just need to remove the udev stuff from the
> 2.6
> patch. Everything else is straitforward I think.

>From a security point of view it makes a lot of sense to go with Kernel
2.4. It's more secure and more stable then 2.6.
This is exactly the reason why we at Devil-Linux are in no hurry to
release the next major version, which uses Kernel 2.6.

I don't have an opinion about the rest...


  Heiko Zuerker

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list