1 |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:27 AM james <garftd@×××××××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> It works fabulously, but it is time to upgrade, as most codes dependent |
4 |
> on old software, have been migrated. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> So should I skip to a version 5 kernel? |
7 |
> If so which one? I usually run hundreds of testing packages so maybe |
8 |
> make the new system all testing? |
9 |
|
10 |
If you're more of the mindset of stability over features (as seems to |
11 |
be the case) then I'd stick with a longterm kernel. That means years |
12 |
of updates that basically shouldn't require anything more than running |
13 |
make oldconfig to deal with. Once in a VERY rare while a new option |
14 |
shows up. |
15 |
|
16 |
You should be updating your kernel regularly to address security |
17 |
issues and other regressions. If you stay within the same major.minor |
18 |
series you shouldn't be getting anything other than bugfixes. |
19 |
|
20 |
I personally use the latest longterm, but not until it has been out |
21 |
for a few months. Mainly this is because I use zfs and don't want to |
22 |
deal with what versions of the one are compatible with what versions |
23 |
of the other. |
24 |
|
25 |
Right now I'm on the 4.19 longterm, and I'm getting to the point where |
26 |
I'm contemplating switching to the 5.4 longterm. If I were in your |
27 |
shoes i'd be looking at 5.4 unless there is a reason not to. |
28 |
|
29 |
If you're asking how to actually compile/install/etc a kernel just |
30 |
follow the docs, but you should be doing this regularly. Jumping from |
31 |
3.18 you're somewhat more likely to run into issues - your biggest |
32 |
headache though will be dealing with the 30,000 prompts you get from |
33 |
make oldconfig and making sure you set all the new options correctly. |
34 |
You won't get that problem going between two patch-level releases (eg |
35 |
5.4.31 -> 5.4.32). |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Rich |