latest kernel? [General Linux]

From: Darren Salt on 12 Mar 2010 17:38

I demand that Grant may or may not have written...

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:04:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I noticed that debian backports has 2.6.32 kernel (currently running
>> 2.6.30) What if any are the advantages of an upgrade?

> The 2.6.32.x series is flagged for extended maintenance, as 2.6.27.x was,
> currently 2.6.27.45. So 2.6.32.x a better kernel to use, currently
> 2.6.32.9.

AIUI, 2.6.32.x is also expected to be the chosen kernel for squeeze.

> Get your kernel source from the source, kernel.org :)

Which is what I do. Then I use make-kpkg.

--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + This comment has been censored.

Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about.

From: Rahul on 12 Mar 2010 17:59

Darren Salt <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in
news:50FC7B9BB4%news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid:

>> Get your kernel source from the source, kernel.org :)
>
> Which is what I do. Then I use make-kpkg.

I am curious, can I be using a off-the-shelf packaged distro. like CentOS
but still use a pristine kernel that I downloaded off kernel.org and
compiled myself? Is that just making a change in grub.conf pointing to my
self-compiled kernel?

Or is this approach incompatible?

--
Rahul

From: Grant on 12 Mar 2010 20:17

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:59:49 +0000 (UTC), Rahul <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Darren Salt <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in
>news:50FC7B9BB4%news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid:
>
>>> Get your kernel source from the source, kernel.org :)
>>
>> Which is what I do. Then I use make-kpkg.
>
>I am curious, can I be using a off-the-shelf packaged distro. like CentOS
>but still use a pristine kernel that I downloaded off kernel.org and
>compiled myself? Is that just making a change in grub.conf pointing to my
>self-compiled kernel?

You should be able to, I have no idea how far away Redhat kernels are
from the vanilla series these days.
>
>Or is this approach incompatible?

Try it? then you get to discover which distro features depend on
out-of-tree kernel options. Might be security and/or performance
patches, I don't know.

Back when I ran Redhat, I used to stay with the latest kernel.org
offering. I use Slackware these days (~5 years) and still run latest
kernel.

Grant.

From: Moe Trin on 13 Mar 2010 12:33

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
<Xns9D39ACE9F27F36650A1FC0D7811DDBC81(a)85.214.113.135>, Rahul wrote:

>I am curious, can I be using a off-the-shelf packaged distro. like
>CentOS but still use a pristine kernel that I downloaded off
>kernel.org and compiled myself?

"_can_ you"? Certainly - you can do as you wish. "_should_ you" is
a completely different question, and the answer is "that depends".

[compton ~]$ finger kernel(a)kernel.org
[kernel.org]
The latest linux-next version of the Linux kernel is: next-20100312
The latest snapshot 2.6 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.34-rc1-git2
The latest mainline 2.6 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.34-rc1
The latest stable 2.6 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.33
The latest stable 2.6.32 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.32.9
The latest stable 2.6.31 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.31.12
The latest stable 2.6.30 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.30.10
The latest stable 2.6.27 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.27.45
The latest stable 2.4.37 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.37.9
[compton ~]$

>Is that just making a change in grub.conf pointing to my
>self-compiled kernel?

Most likely, but you'd want to read the ChangeLog file.

7676699 Feb 24 19:08 ChangeLog-2.6.33

>Or is this approach incompatible?

Read the documentation that comes with your distribution, and do some
thinking. Your distributor is the one who is "maintaining" your
kernel at the moment - meaning they are watching the updates, adding
things that need to be added, fixing things that need to be fixed, and
making sure everything is compatible with everything else on your
system. This includes keeping the package management database up to
date. (The package manager does NOT look at what files/applications
are installed - it looks to see what it has installed, and what is in
a database it keeps on your system.) If you want to take over the
management/maintenance function, that's your decision. You probably
also want to look at the 'Linux From Scratch' guide at the LDP
(http://tldp.org/guides.html). You may find this is not a desirable
decision, which is why package management systems exist.

Old guy

From: Rahul on 15 Mar 2010 13:23

ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in
news:slrnhpnj3b.1n2.ibuprofin(a)compton.phx.az.us:

> also want to look at the 'Linux From Scratch' guide at the LDP
> (http://tldp.org/guides.html). You may find this is not a desirable
> decision, which is why package management systems exist.
>

Thanks Moe! Usually I'm happy to let package-management systems do their
thing without me interfering, but kernels are in a sense special. I was
just wondering if it might be practical to do userspace-applications under
yum but just use pristine kernel.org kernels. [I've also read some
disparaging remarks on the kernel mailing list against using kernels
compiled by distributors as opposed to pristine kernels. Not sure how
relevant this is.]

I guess I need to read more!

--
Rahul