Ken Moffat wrote: > (ii.) Because the changes are tiny, I assume SBU and space > measurements can be carried forward - I think the figures for > 2.6.16.5 were mine, in which case they are accurate for that version > on my machine with my .config but may have only a glancing relevance > to your figures.
I think the user's custom configuration will cause more variation in time and space usage than kernel version. Changing compilers, say from 4.0.3 to 4.1 will probably case more variation also. > But, I'm well aware that I've been monitoring kernel development > for longer than I've been using lfs, and that although to me it > would be obviously correct to upgrade to a new stable release if I'm > not already using a -rc kernel that has the fixes, other people may > think differently. So, what do you think ? I think you are using the term 'stable release' in slightly different ways. In one place you mention 2.6.x.y -> 2.6.x.y+1 and another 2.6.x.y -> 2.6.x+1 and treat them slightly differently. From what I understand, both are considered 'stable'. At some point, we need to freeze the kernel, just like every other package. Users are free to upgrade to the latest of any package of course, but we need a constant platform for testing. The best way to test, IMO, is via building and using the packages in BLFS. That takes some time. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
