El vie, 02-01-2015 a las 12:25 -0500, Mike Pagano escribió: > Hello, Everyone, > > Are there solid arguments for stabilizing any version of gentoo-sources? I > think the valid arguments for not stabilizing gentoo-sources can be garnered > from the thread about not stabilizing vanilla-sources[1]. > > This is in no way complaining about how long it takes to stabilize a kernel. > It's just a fact that by the time we do stabilizing one, there might be many, > many kernel versions released for that 3.X branch that contains security > fixes > for which the stable version will not have. Kernel versions are coming out > 1-2 a week at this point. > > I feel we are giving users a false sense of security, and maybe it would be > better for them to upgrade faster than they are doing now if they are only > using stable kernels. > > Having stable kernels around keeps me from deleting these old, potentially > vulnerable releases.[2] > > Mike > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-kernel&m=137182668616082&w=2 > [2] http://packages.gentoo.org/package/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources > >
In my case I still run only "stable" gentoo-sources in many machines to prevent regressions introduced by new major kernel releases. For example, few weeks ago kernel 3.17.x were breaking X in some of them due to a regression with AGP handling that was fixed in 3.17.4. Even if arch team members cannot test the versions really deep, for now it has been enough for me to rely on kernel maintainers thinking a concrete major version is ready to be stabilized after some weeks :)
