On Saturday 10 March 2007 03:25:16 Sunnz wrote: > Excuse me if this sounds rude, but can you be a bit more precise about > "Yes, kernel- and user-land want to be in sync.". > > I mean, I have read the FAQ, it says -stable userland and packages > must run on a -stable kernel... which is what I have now, I am running > -stable userland on -stable kernel. > > But the part I want to fix/clarify here is the process of building the > userland. Must -stable userland build by a -stable kernel? I have > tried to build -stable userland with a -stable kernel, which crashed > the system. The userland has already been build now with a -release > kernel; and I have booted the system using -stable kernel, so it is > indeed in sync as now.
You aren't being rude--I was being imprecise. The kernel- and user-land are seperate parts, but need to be "in sync", meaning that when kernel changes are made, those changes can affect userland, so the two need to be updated together. When you compile a new kernel and boot with that you are out of sync, but normally works. When it doesn't the developers call a "flag day", meaning that you may have to get a new snapshot of the system and use that, rather than compile. This doesn't happen that often, though. In your case, you compiled a new -stable kernel but found that it didn't work when compiling userland. Compiling the newer userland with the older kernel seems to have worked for you, but you don't really know--not really. In your case you might well be OK, but I'd be hesitant to run something production on it. I'd try the process again and figure out what you did wrong. I hope I wrote something readable this time. ;-) --STeve Andre'
