On 3/18/07, Darren Spruell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/18/07, Maurice Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2007 at 19:34:59 -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> >Running "A.B-RELEASE+Patches" is very similar to "A.B-STABLE" since the
> >user applied patches (available on the errata.html page) are included
> >withing the -STABLE branch of cvs but the differences is the -STABLE
> >branch of cvs also includes additional, less important bug fixes that
> >were not note worthy enough to have an errata entry. The reason why
> >patches are made available individually on the errata.html page is
> >because some people are required to follow a policy of making *only*
> >the minimal required changes to machines used in production
> >environments. (i.e. "If it's running properly, don't mess with it").
>
> One more question about this: is it supported to run a stable kernel on
> a system that is release or release+errate?
Although there are only (typically) slight differences between -stable
and release+patches, they shouldn't be considered the same.
> I have a test system tracking 4.0-stable (through anoncvs) and a few
> systems that are running 4.0-release with some of the errate applied
> (all kernel errata, but I skipped some others that I feel are not
> needed, like the httpd-patch on systems not running httpd).
> As an alternative to compiling the kernel on these systems, I could copy
> the 4.0-stable kernel. Is this supported?
As for supported, I don't know. One is not the same as the other.
You'll be doing yourself a favor by not mismatching your kernel and
userland.
That being said I've run as Maurice is asking about for years at a
time and never ran into a problem running -stable kernels and various
-release+errata userlands. I got conservative though a year ago and
just run -stable (or -current on my laptop) now.
Greg
