Fwd: Re: 2.4/2.6 kernels

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Apr 21 14:03:24 PDT 2005

The way I see it, linux-2.6 is the only unstable package we have. Its 
practically cvs snapshots. 2.4 is safe, stable, and still supports most 
modern hardware. uClibc may also be unstable, but in all this time with 
0.9.27 there has yet to be a vulnerability. The uClibc releases are much more 
conservative than the linux-2.6 releases.

Anyway, the way I was picturing it was when gcc-4.1 is out, hopefully 
linux-2.7 will have branched, and glibc-2.3.6 may already be out. But we 
don't need to wait for all this for a stable hlfs book.

I should also mention there are 3 glibc-2.3.5 testsuite bugs/failures with 
2.6.11* kernels that won't be fixed before glibc-2.3.6.

So far hlfs has been parallel with lfs-unstable as far as package versions. 
But rather than trying to keep up with the bleeding edge, I think its best to 
take a back seat to lfs-unstable and refocus on the security enhancements.

I don't really want to see 4 books, with two libc's and two kernels, because 
it just makes things more confusing and slows down development.

I'm running linux-2.4 at my house because I got tired of following the 2.6 
branch, it was just like following the glibc-cvs snapshots. I would like the 
rest of you to vote on this because its a fairly serious change.

So again, as I see it:


The uClibc and binutils versions would need testing. And there are more ways 
to mix these versions.


More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list