Fwd: Re: 2.4/2.6 kernels
robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Apr 21 20:15:39 PDT 2005
On April 21, 2005 08:23 pm, Archaic wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 05:03:24PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > 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.
> How can it be stable and still support modern hardware if that modern
> hardware requires adding functionality to a kernel? That addition of
> functionality is exactly what is being used as a bases for assuming the
> 2.6 branch is unstable.
The hardware that is only supported by 2.6 is rare, most people are not
affected by this. Key advantages to uClibc is the security options, and its
ability to be rebuilt under a hardened kernel. Linux-2.6 does not offer any
security advantages over 2.4.
> > The uClibc and binutils versions would need testing. And there are more
> > ways to mix these versions.
> I'm not sure I follow. Are you advocating not using uClibc or are you
> just unsure about version numbers at this point?
I mean that the versions of the toolchain can be teamed up differently that I
had them. Like gcc-4.1 with linux-2.6, etc.
More information about the hlfs-dev