On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Paulo J. da Silva e Silva wrote: > Didn't 2.2.16 appear to solve some security bugs of 2.2.15? If this is the > case, even if the patches applied to 2.2.15 actually close those security > bugs, wouldn't 2.2.15 give an impression of lack of security?
The real problem with 2.2.15+security patches is the VM under heavy load: the kernel goes amok and starts killing tasks right and left. 2.2.16 is reportedly much better on that regard, at least from what I could get in a few threads from the kernel mailing list. So you really should update to either 2.2.16+Alan's combo errata patch (or 2.2.17-pre1, which is a fully errata-patched and cleaned-up 2.2.16 without any other major modifications) if your machine sees some heavy load occasionally (if it was under constant heavy load, you'd have done it already :-) ). As for Debian, we're in the second test cicle. Maybe if there is a third cycle for some reason, a kernel update to 2.2.17-pre1 might be considered... I personally don't think 2.2.15 with the security patches is so bad that it deserves causing a third test cycle, and apparently the kernel maintainer agrees. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
