| 1 |
On (02/06/04 08:54), Thomas Mandl wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I've noticed that my sys-kernel/mm-sources-2.6.1-r5.ebuild is gone! |
| 4 |
> a machine (setup about 10 days ago) was built with these kernel sources, |
| 5 |
> and now I was trying to setup another identical machine, but the above |
| 6 |
> named sources are gone!!! |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
We like to keep the number of ebuilds in a directory reasonably low, one |
| 9 |
or two stable versions and one or two unstable. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> which 2.6 kernel sources are most stable and can be recommended for a |
| 12 |
> stable production system (web server/mysql server). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
First off, 2.6 *isnt* stable enough to be recommended for a stable |
| 15 |
production system. You might be safe using 2.6 vanilla, but the only |
| 16 |
real advantage on the server side is a bit of new hardware support |
| 17 |
(fex amd64). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If you use mm-sources, please recognize what it is. This is Andrew |
| 20 |
Morton's proving ground for new kernel work that is not ready (at this |
| 21 |
point highly untested) before it is allowed to enter Linus's tree. Some |
| 22 |
of these cause major problems, and are later dropped. In a nutshell, if |
| 23 |
you run -mm, your systems stability is entirely up in the air. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On a real production system, I would recommend a vanilla 2.4.x kernel |
| 26 |
with a small patchset. My personal choice is grsec-sources, which adds |
| 27 |
support for PaX memory protections. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> many thanks in advance |
| 30 |
> tom |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Brandon Hale |
| 33 |
Co-lead, Gentoo Desktop |
| 34 |
Hardened Gentoo (yeah yeah, Method :P) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives