kernels, binutils, and stable releases

Robert Connolly robert at
Fri Apr 15 00:42:03 PDT 2005

On April 14, 2005 05:50 pm, Archaic wrote:
> 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.

Well, even for 0.3. 2.4 is well tested, just not in this configuration. I'm 
already having problems trying to downgrade from a nptl host.

> 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.

I tried 2.16.90 and it was fine with me. I think the bugs with 2.16 are with 
sparc and non-linux, not with x86-linux. But we'll see.


More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list