Change History (3)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
I did my last incarnation against this version. Building up to xterm in BLFS. After comparing the logs, I'll throw it up on -dev. For the most part, a micro version bump should be fine, but we are pushing hard for a release.
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Updated to 2.6.27.4 at revision 8713.
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
Why not ? My personal inclination is to upgrade across "stable" kernels, but past experience suggests even that can have problems, e.g. several 2.6.24.x kernels had problems with their headers. At a minimum, an editor should test that the whole LFS build completes, and note any new issues with the test results. In an ideal world, we would also confirm it can build itself, and build our own choices of desktop/server software against the new headers (so that we know what patches, or version upgrades, are required).
Summary: even if somebody is able to pick this up immediately, it still takes considerable testing to say "this looks good enough to go in". But, thanks for raising the ticket so that people are aware of the newer version.