kernels, binutils, and stable releases

Archaic archaic at
Thu Apr 14 14:50:36 PDT 2005

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:56:52PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> 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.

It might be nice to have that as a backup plan, but there needs to be
widespread testing before *anything* gets released as 1.0. Once package
selection and lots of testing is complete, the 2.6 kernel might be good
to go. If not, then the 2.4 kernel is always an option but will also
require heavy testing.

> 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.

2.16 has known bugs. Those bugs are also present in the newest HJL.
glibc-2.3.5 may have problems as of yet unknown as well, but it is
supposed to be only a regression fix release. I'd stick with what have
for binutils.


Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list