[opensuse-kernel] -stable kernel releases into openSUSE?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power. I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*. This means: * do you prefer to stay with the latest stable kernel released at the time an opensuse distro becomes available? (And then only single fixes for reported bugs are merged.) Or should be -stable releases incorporated as soon as they are out (or later). * Regarding the parentheses, would you prefer some time to pass before a -stable kernel is committed to a particular openSUSE kernel? * Did you hit some regression caused by stable releases (this is rather information for me personally). If so, how often? Note that Kernel:stable (and Tumbleweed) will be *unaffected* by the result of this thread. It will still follow the latest stable upstream release as soon as possible. Opinions welcome. [1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2. thanks, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPKW2LAAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJcGkP/iqUW+nc/ODUEqfJ2DfExZlM 0kHZGU6sEIgc8mwTEED8v4qJsoHzB8wU8FzuZDP175gsClVPrzaCKulJmNOyxtw1 B/wA0M3Tkv9yqxIbPeJ/RxjF+A8ujPxPy/8lV7+u59lwmC09XmFNgumHR3sx4faC tVDOqWL7+tSat930MOKX2BEDgUh9pCOUrD4j8p3LKAS8HOWOTahAQyWmHC/Vxyvg xabCdOFd7O1OJcZ5natD3Gc9EiIQIrN/kXhJQICgVJb3q+cdEWW4302N1zyygthP s/OfS4GOhaNhkRi90UuM+NNafcg8aPPIIXRH3xQ2+UwiB51q5dc/0w8omdHu1fNM W9e7KkALaHYyAnxtnWB0I/2UtmTJ7AIAdx4A+7sY/xjf54DR45ohQgT8fElrjCwg d88ov3Q6ZHZZyuhY1Yq7GgqLE1YC5UvMjhCBRMBvDcEkxJskc7N7ozeFYKzLpdD8 IYxohjKNQfJTlh6cDa0RELHAP7vxvcZzvoIbyew4JAnW/eM0mB0tKevuk3YZIoLj 5X5wJFV8ZTIZB2cClHq+h2MTL5yilWqI7Hm4bUNx7w8WyMlP40jvzKT0Pem5tJRN Z62d0evHXiK++48UHcbKWMoIR9axp8cCIvy1PCuZmukYDHPeNGxnrtpeuvPLl/JZ LI47OxGVdRTFqjZ9UlJn =qn8w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2012 05:51 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
This means: * do you prefer to stay with the latest stable kernel released at the time an opensuse distro becomes available? (And then only single fixes for reported bugs are merged.) Or should be -stable releases incorporated as soon as they are out (or later). * Regarding the parentheses, would you prefer some time to pass before a -stable kernel is committed to a particular openSUSE kernel? * Did you hit some regression caused by stable releases (this is rather information for me personally). If so, how often?
Note that Kernel:stable (and Tumbleweed) will be *unaffected* by the result of this thread. It will still follow the latest stable upstream release as soon as possible.
Opinions welcome.
[1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2.
thanks,
Just for feedback with the 3.1 (and 3.2 actually) my main concern are arp cache poison https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741452 and the lack of Alps/Touchpad (half patched resolved by Ismael now) driver -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Ambassador GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot
On 02/01/2012 10:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
This means: * do you prefer to stay with the latest stable kernel released at the time an opensuse distro becomes available? (And then only single fixes for reported bugs are merged.) Or should be -stable releases incorporated as soon as they are out (or later). * Regarding the parentheses, would you prefer some time to pass before a -stable kernel is committed to a particular openSUSE kernel? * Did you hit some regression caused by stable releases (this is rather information for me personally). If so, how often?
Note that Kernel:stable (and Tumbleweed) will be *unaffected* by the result of this thread. It will still follow the latest stable upstream release as soon as possible.
Opinions welcome.
[1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2.
Jiri, Making this change would make little difference to me as I am usually running whatever kernel is current in wireless-testing. ATM, that means 3.3-rc1. The distro kernel is used only when installing, or on the odd occasion when my system gets messed up. It is certainly true that as a particular release nears EOL, that kernel is quite dated. In particular, there are a number of devices that are not supported, which forces the users to use work-arounds such as building their own kernels, or installing compat-wireless. I feel we should be able to do better. Installing a new stable kernel seems a good idea to me, but not with the 3.x.0 release. There are too many problems not detected by the hardware available to the -rcX testers, but by .2, these have mostly been detected and fixed. If the policy on kernels is changed, there should also be a change in zypper so that at least 2 kernels are kept. That way the user can always fall back to the one they were using. I posted your message on the o.o.n.announcements forum and I will send you a summary of any comments posted there. Larry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 06:18:59 pm Larry Finger wrote:
It is certainly true that as a particular release nears EOL, that kernel is quite dated. In particular, there are a number of devices that are not supported, which forces the users to use work-arounds such as building their own kernels, or installing compat-wireless. I feel we should be able to do better.
Stable kernel branches aren't meant for hardware enablement, so doesn't help either way.
Installing a new stable kernel seems a good idea to me, but not with the 3.x.0 release. There are too many problems not detected by the hardware available to the -rcX testers, but by .2, these have mostly been detected and fixed.
I'm afraid you misunderstood Jiri's question. Let's take a concrete example to make it clearer: openSUSE 12.1 was released with kernel 3.1.0. The first maintenance update which was released one week ago is based on stable kernel 3.1.9. The question is: was it a good idea, or should have we stayed with 3.1.0 for the product's whole lifetime.
If the policy on kernels is changed, there should also be a change in zypper so that at least 2 kernels are kept. That way the user can always fall back to the one they were using.
This would certainly be a good idea, regardless of this discussion's outcome. -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
2012/2/1 Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>:
I'm afraid you misunderstood Jiri's question. Let's take a concrete example to make it clearer: openSUSE 12.1 was released with kernel 3.1.0. The first maintenance update which was released one week ago is based on stable kernel 3.1.9. The question is: was it a good idea, or should have we stayed with 3.1.0 for the product's whole lifetime.
I vote that stable releases like 3.1.9 be incorporated automatically in maintenance updates. I don't think its even a close call. And I don't think it needs to go to -project to discuss. The evergreen project discuss picking a LTS kernel which was a different major kernel version number (2.6.29 => 2.6.32 as an example) to move to after evergreen support kicked in. It was never formally agreed to do that, but I don't think evergreen could handle the kernel updates any other way. (ie. It needs a source of updates to pull from.) greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:
It is certainly true that as a particular release nears EOL, that kernel is quite dated. In particular, there are a number of devices that are not supported, which forces the users to use work-arounds such as building their own kernels, or installing compat-wireless. I feel we should be able to do better.
Stable kernel branches aren't meant for hardware enablement, so doesn't help either way.
Well, there are actually commits flowing into -stable which are pure hardware enablement -- device ID additions. Now, that is not typically enough for wireless cards, but for other kinds of gadgets this is often enough.
If the policy on kernels is changed, there should also be a change in zypper so that at least 2 kernels are kept. That way the user can always fall back to the one they were using.
This would certainly be a good idea, regardless of this discussion's outcome.
Just put/uncomment multiversion = provides:multiversion(kernel) in zypp.conf -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:
If the policy on kernels is changed, there should also be a change in zypper so that at least 2 kernels are kept. That way the user can always fall back to the one they were using. This would certainly be a good idea, regardless of this discussion's outcome.
Just put/uncomment
multiversion = provides:multiversion(kernel)
in zypp.conf
Personally, I agree with both what Jean and Jiri wrote, and that is how I configure my systems. But I believe it is not the default because the majority school of thought says that it makes life too complicated for non-expert users, since they then have to learn how to and then forever more manually manage the ever-growing number of kernels that are filling their filespace. So I think Jean may be closer to the requirement, that there should be an explicit change so that the options are 1 - 2 - many rather than just 1 - many, and the default should be 2. Or perhaps the option 1 just shouldn't exist. Cheers, Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 02 February 2012 11:59:10 am Dave Howorth wrote:
Jiri Kosina wrote:
Just put/uncomment
multiversion = provides:multiversion(kernel)
in zypp.conf
Personally, I agree with both what Jean and Jiri wrote, and that is how I configure my systems. But I believe it is not the default because the majority school of thought says that it makes life too complicated for non-expert users, since they then have to learn how to and then forever more manually manage the ever-growing number of kernels that are filling their filespace.
So I think Jean may be closer to the requirement, that there should be an explicit change so that the options are 1 - 2 - many rather than just 1 - many, and the default should be 2. Or perhaps the option 1 just shouldn't exist.
I agree that option 2 should exist and be the default. I would not drop option 1 though, as it does make sense if you are low on disk space or are an optimistic, or simply if you have one machine for testing and only deploy the updates on many other similar machine after testing is done. But I also think there is a user-friendliness issue. Displaying 4 to 6 entries in the grub menu might be a little frightening. It would make sense to drop the failsafe entry for the second kernel. It would also be convenient to hide some entries by default to only make the frequent ones visible. Lastly, renaming the entries to something shorter when there is no room for confusion might also be desirable. For example "Desktop -- openSUSE 12.1 - 3.1.9-1.4" doesn't really tell more than just "Linux" or "openSUSE" for many users. Just random ideas anyway, I'm not going to implement anything myself, no time... -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2012 11:59 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:
If the policy on kernels is changed, there should also be a change in zypper so that at least 2 kernels are kept. That way the user can always fall back to the one they were using. This would certainly be a good idea, regardless of this discussion's outcome.
Just put/uncomment
multiversion = provides:multiversion(kernel)
in zypp.conf
Personally, I agree with both what Jean and Jiri wrote, and that is how I configure my systems. But I believe it is not the default because the majority school of thought says that it makes life too complicated for non-expert users, since they then have to learn how to and then forever more manually manage the ever-growing number of kernels that are filling their filespace. Dave this isn't anymore a trouble normally on 12.1+ with the help of purge_kernel which do a great work on that. Have a look at the script /etc/init.d/purge_kernel and in a fresh 12.1+ zypp.conf how to tell it what you want to keep.
So I think Jean may be closer to the requirement, that there should be an explicit change so that the options are 1 - 2 - many rather than just 1 - many, and the default should be 2. Or perhaps the option 1 just shouldn't exist.
Cheers, Dave
-- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Ambassador GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:09:00 +0530, Bruno Friedmann <bruno@ioda-net.ch> wrote:
Dave this isn't anymore a trouble normally on 12.1+ with the help of purge_kernel which do a great work on that. Have a look at the script /etc/init.d/purge_kernel and in a fresh 12.1+ zypp.conf how to tell it what you want to keep.
true; after the recent kernel update via the update repo, i noticed that the previous kernel was removed only after the new one booted successfully, at the end of the boot process. and it is relatively simple to change zypper conf. to allow for two or more kernel versions to be kept. (was somewhat surprised to see the kernel being removed during boot...) -- phani. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2012 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
This should probably be posted to the project list. The membership of this list tends not to share views on kernel development that the opensuse community at large may have. - -Jeff
This means: * do you prefer to stay with the latest stable kernel released at the time an opensuse distro becomes available? (And then only single fixes for reported bugs are merged.) Or should be -stable releases incorporated as soon as they are out (or later). * Regarding the parentheses, would you prefer some time to pass before a -stable kernel is committed to a particular openSUSE kernel? * Did you hit some regression caused by stable releases (this is rather information for me personally). If so, how often?
Note that Kernel:stable (and Tumbleweed) will be *unaffected* by the result of this thread. It will still follow the latest stable upstream release as soon as possible.
Opinions welcome.
[1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2.
thanks,
- -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPKXVMAAoJEB57S2MheeWyVk4P/2ONyW/J1n2Of3FZMfk6gtk+ Et/UXn3Cbp5OAjxcwjuoSV+kHYGGH690NeQBGOeHdTOECYv1ugFctS91XhZahI9w P4Bgv5PmLGWcyk0Mdh/M7SzFQavN4A9gnRSbRsjHx4rXqjCyX4q2FCbIEikBJxDO W7FmEvWjtn6O1Cnfe0A6CZLlhzKAYzFggrzXmc7H58ad3bAa4fwcAW/mVaQQzE76 xtPN6ma4cTTHGawLgADq6Y0sQQWAW7GfBI4vK+uT7FqkfpPLIJn9cwAUD2WsAw5T Q1E9nZf93ZeFnvFI1YdK75ntfXfVRJmZFfD59Hyr+5RDR5q5YtKy1RJvkDTOM5zj g3FrpPNKN4iXIed28ioxCTM/GS9mQ0lMOtRFW1h3YMICAEVLfhE4BVUlFplCCfTI D5ypduYEqQ441jRU82ncAYcqd15zcJ2yTK9dknGME7F6owef8yPs3ZWDAX6pXCE0 arUhouLjmWBmBnNDTLUFtv3EnXY3aBiBooq+hipkeD2+052NXPVBCRt8tDk49UGC euqBZ/V59nyS/u74Djng1CEFLbtqH7BCjS5KFPUxVtmdRuSF9vsw6MRVJIBlsBWV mpS+1ULOe+4vQBrePMiw6erubpGPeUYHWV+1NnWAQNIsYlTVGNALS4ckZchAkTOM /jgHA/LArjZ8Oo46acFp =8APM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 01.02.2012 17:51, schrieb Jiri Slaby:
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
always use the latest stable upstream release (3.1.9 was a good idea). If this does not work for us, the upstream -stable process is seriously broken and needs to be fixed. For Kernel:HEAD I'd prefer even frequent updates before rc2. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2012 01:15 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Am 01.02.2012 17:51, schrieb Jiri Slaby:
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
always use the latest stable upstream release (3.1.9 was a good idea).
If this does not work for us, the upstream -stable process is seriously broken and needs to be fixed.
For Kernel:HEAD I'd prefer even frequent updates before rc2.
Chances are it may not even build/boot before rc2. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPKcBaAAoJEB57S2MheeWyLkoP/iKXvCZNORszeO4QR8njVn/6 5RJdx5ZzHaYwvWuu6g79ViKMyAd+vl+fQFNdJ3ZqgukKoBV2e7Q01VWCsOuCWDQo hEy6DUAE1ni/3E02FqkNTQb+nJ832iY6kRPvm5eP/vTAiRW2eTlMS3GJQImmUOHh anJq8ZYNuzQVTvcUAkj6CUNFcXhIClkhTtn4iMkHjCCWn3uh/R/BjPGrpkl0LSfB M56EgypVYWYTfmkaxQwO4MNkmoivnA2yJ7X2kjDhUfUMCqhJgGX9MoXiulPoBwSC FUcskcBCyUZjoFfVZdwF5XUml+X1ALE3VvgZS8JIuFG+4EGDElBuJhWAJRugizi6 PzVrWIaHFLmV1NIft5uBvGdb0qoip+ESy0NB079GZf9H36BDYmYefS3h+3KfpUIL hJeuEfOA1HuK65iJ+nTTQudqnQ3YsQEa+Mp2KiLHGdrFQVlHOZGwQdgaKcpFKxSH Tyis/H7jx/q3ru5xmF/EAaptakDl5TuRwIm4cJrD6Ql+tfauFfbh0Ln4sqN/yM+3 pBZWTmkM4NR/s9uZYvaeqXD1AjkQ2FEUH80tK5N14U43nx59L4bmVBD1XLT9AINB UYEDrhOp1xuD4jt5f5U5i9+SNuFs8/2SzouLd1SW3mvRFJftaSq4ie3O+LMkYuef GodVmaAOIDBaQaE6T+Uq =v/91 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
always use the latest stable upstream release (3.1.9 was a good idea).
If this does not work for us, the upstream -stable process is seriously broken and needs to be fixed.
Agreed on both accounts. In fact, at one point in the future I'd even suggest to go for real version updates, 3.X to 3.X+something as Fedora is doing, for example; but that's for another day. Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> || SUSE || Director Product Management -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2012 05:51 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
[1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2.
I never had trouble with stable upgrades, so upgrading openSUSE-12.1 to lastest 3.1.x should be fine, however those are usually only maintained for some months, until the next release comes out. e.g. https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/TS8VGjTp3Rj says, that 3.1.10 already was the last one. so what do we do for the remaining 16 months of openSUSE support? option 1) Maintain 3.1.x stable kernels ourselves for the remaining time option 2) Upgrading from 3.1.x to 3.2.x (and later 3.3.x etc) could be an option - but I sometimes had trouble with such changes with drivers that got dropped from staging, replaced by others, new bugs introduced, incompatible userspace, etc. option 3) Downgrade to long-term-supported 3.0.x kernel for openSUSE. Ciao Bernhard M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 05:58:05PM +0100, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
On 02/01/2012 05:51 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
[1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2.
I never had trouble with stable upgrades, so upgrading openSUSE-12.1 to lastest 3.1.x should be fine, however those are usually only maintained for some months, until the next release comes out. e.g. https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/TS8VGjTp3Rj says, that 3.1.10 already was the last one. so what do we do for the remaining 16 months of openSUSE support?
option 1) Maintain 3.1.x stable kernels ourselves for the remaining time
That is what worked well so far in all the past releases.
option 2) Upgrading from 3.1.x to 3.2.x (and later 3.3.x etc) could be an option - but I sometimes had trouble with such changes with drivers that got dropped from staging, replaced by others, new bugs introduced, incompatible userspace, etc.
option 3) Downgrade to long-term-supported 3.0.x kernel for openSUSE.
Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 02.02.2012 17:58, schrieb Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
On 02/01/2012 05:51 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
at SUSE, we are currently discussing the future of merging releases from -stable kernel tree[1] into SLE. There is a fear of regressions caused in the enterprise distribution as well as a fear of high patch count which in most cases cannot be reviewed properly with our power.
I would like to know your opinion about merging -stable kernels into *openSUSE*.
[1] The releases numbered by the third numbers after major release numbers, e.g. 3.2.1 or 3.2.2.
I never had trouble with stable upgrades, so upgrading openSUSE-12.1 to lastest 3.1.x should be fine, however those are usually only maintained for some months, until the next release comes out. e.g. https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/TS8VGjTp3Rj says, that 3.1.10 already was the last one. so what do we do for the remaining 16 months of openSUSE support?
option 1) Maintain 3.1.x stable kernels ourselves for the remaining time
option 2) Upgrading from 3.1.x to 3.2.x (and later 3.3.x etc) could be an option - but I sometimes had trouble with such changes with drivers that got dropped from staging, replaced by others, new bugs introduced, incompatible userspace, etc.
I'm using the newest stable kernel 3.2.2 even for openSUSE 11.4 without any problems on most of my boxes here (minor first problems occurring with the kernel update could be connect to external errors of tools later) Vote for option 2). Would like to extend this to simply keep the last release in the former 3.(n-1).x kernel in the stable repository still for reference when something is coming up with the newest stable kernel. Today I have to keep a very close eye on changes in ...Kernel:/stable/standard to keep these releases in my private mirror (moving trees), before they are dropped. The latest releases (e.g. 3.1.10) I often didn't get at all because the switch to 3.2.x happened already with 3.1.7 and 3.1x is not offered/compiled any more and deleted. Cheers Ralf -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
2012/2/1 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>:
* do you prefer to stay with the latest stable kernel released at the time an opensuse distro becomes available?
No, I would prefer what upstream considers stable.
* would you prefer some time to pass before a -stable kernel is committed to a particular openSUSE kernel?
No, time does not mean anything unless someone is doing regression testing.
* Did you hit some regression caused by stable releases (this is rather information for me personally). If so, how often?
No, never. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
participants (15)
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann -
Bruno Friedmann -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Dave Howorth -
Dr. Ralf Czekalla -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Greg Freemyer -
Jean Delvare -
Jeff Mahoney -
Jiri Kosina -
Jiri Slaby -
Larry Finger -
Marcus Meissner -
phanisvara das -
Stefan Seyfried