2.6.0 Goes Final

red_over_blue · 2003-12-18 04:43:12

For your information, the most current stable linux kernel is 2.6.0.

arm · 2003-12-18 05:44:33

good news! maybe arch linux will upgrade to 2.6.0 kernel

LB06 · 2003-12-18 13:09:19

Will there be a stock 2.6 in Arch 0.6/current?

LB06 · 2003-12-18 13:10:40

2.6.0 is so popular kernel.org is using almost 250mbit/s out of 250mbit/s

dp · 2003-12-18 17:28:01

LB06 wrote:

Will there be a stock 2.6 in Arch 0.6/current?

would be great ... really :-)

EDIT:

kernel.org wrote:

Current bandwidth utilization 274.34 Mbit/s

EDIT2:

kernel.org wrote:

Current bandwidth utilization 311.22 Mbit/s

contrasutra · 2003-12-18 21:47:13

Upgraded to it today. Very nice.

Its wierd. They removed the 2.4 kernel from kernel.org. That makes no sense. Im sure people will still want that for some time.

Lets hope for an arch package.

kakabaratruskia · 2003-12-18 21:53:42

Kernel 2.4 is still in kernel.org

zen_guerrilla · 2003-12-18 21:55:15

contrasutra wrote:

They removed the 2.4 kernel from kernel.org.

Are u sure ? It's still there (ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4)...

contrasutra · 2003-12-18 22:09:30

It was missing from the frontpage last night. I guess they added it back.

rasat · 2003-12-19 10:55:49

Is the devfs config option still in 2.6? If not, then what device system will Arch Linux use?

undeadpenguin · 2003-12-19 11:45:55

It is, but it's marked as obsolete.

apeiro · 2003-12-20 00:15:09

There's a kernel26 package in current, now.

WARNING: in classic Arch fashion, I've tested this package for upwards of 24 whole hours before releasing it, seeing as how most users who want to be on 2.6 already are. If are concerned about stability, stay with 2.4 for now. It is the default Arch kernel.

A few notes:
- module-init-tools replaces modutils, and will work with both kernel versions
- the kernel26 packages uses the '26' extension a lot (/boot/vmlinuz26, /boot/System.map26, /boot/kconfig26) so that 2.4 and 2.6 packages can coexist.
- if you experience weird hanging issues try booting with acpi=off. I've had ACPI freeze a couple of my boxes from time to time.

Quick steps to get 2.6-ified:
1) pacman -Syu (to make sure you have module-init-tools)
2) pacman -S kernel26
3) generate-modprobe.conf >/etc/modprobe.conf (or create your own)
4) Add this line to your /etc/fstab:

none     /dev/pts  devpts    defaults               0 0

5) Create a lilo/grub entry for /boot/vmlinuz26
6) Reboot

I've been running the 2.6.0-test series on my thinkpad for the last 4 months. It's good times.

contrasutra · 2003-12-20 00:29:55

I think this is front page news.

Did the idea of optimized kernels ever get anywhere? I think building like 3 or 4 different kernels wouldn't be too hard. There aren't releases every week or anything.

gumbo · 2003-12-20 03:10:52

2.6.1 is rumored to be out within the next month or so though, since there are a ton of patches and stuff in the pipeline.

Also, the people that want an optimized kernel (more than just i686) should know how to compile and use their own. Hell, even *I* figured it out.

contrasutra · 2003-12-20 04:43:54

Also: What will Arch 0.6 be shipping with? Will it have a 2.6 option at least?

kritoke · 2003-12-20 14:42:55

Was there any reason behind not having ntfs built into the kernel? It was in there in previous kernels for arch.

Kritoke

kakabaratruskia · 2003-12-20 20:19:44

Does the 2.6 kernel of the 2.6 package support sata disks??

rasat · 2003-12-21 03:32:57

I did my first try with 2.6 seeing lot of changes different from earlier kernels. In my taste, too many changes in one go . Here below is a link giving some ideas when migrating to 2.6 (described for RedHat but many points also apply to AL).
http://thomer.com/linux/migrate-to-2.6.html

Jagged · 2003-12-21 04:41:52

All of those changes justify the new minor version. Hence it's 2.6, not 2.4.24

MNKyDeth · 2003-12-21 09:08:04

The 2.6.0 stable kernel supports sata fairly well from my experience. The silicon Image sata chip is still poorly supported and would be my last choice for a sata chip to use. I have tried the promise sata chips and they work great. All I did was enble it in the kernel under scsi and the drives were immediately recognized. I have tried this with an add-on board Promise S150 TX4 raid and an onboard Promise 378chip on an A64 Soltek board.
The trick is not wether 2.6.0 supports sata, cause it does. But please, and I stress this strongly, if you can use a different chip besides silicon image cause they blow.
All we need is a cd that can boot sata with raid 0 or raid in general and I will be set. So will many others, and I know if that was supported, Arch would grow quickly among hardware enthusiasts as it would be one if not the only distro to support that type of feature.

All you need for sata raid to work is a raidtab file, have raid 0 enabled in the kernel, and the sata driver enabled in the kernel for your specific chip. This is not possible with silicon image chips as they only transfer at 1.5mb and have two drivers in the kernel that are needed. To much hassle if you ask me. Stick with via, promise, Intel, Highpoint with your sata choices for chips or add-on cards, but I can for sure say that the promise carsd work.

kakabaratruskia · 2003-12-21 17:50:13

Thanks, and I have a intel chipset.
I'll just have to wait for arch 0.6

kritoke · 2003-12-22 04:25:32

I remember reading somewhere that there was native atapi cd burning in the new kernel? Is that true and do we just have to wait for applications to support it or what?

Kritoke

sud_crow · 2003-12-22 04:46:49

Hi,

yes there si native atapi support, here is the description from the config app about scsi emulation:

SCSI emulation support (BLK_DEV_IDESCSI)

kernel config wrote:

WARNING: ide-scsi is no longer needed for cd writing applications!
The 2.6 kernel supports direct writing to ide-cd, which eliminates
the need for ide-scsi + the entire scsi stack just for writing a
cd. The new method is more efficient in every way.

Arch Linux

#1 2003-12-18 04:43:12

2.6.0 Goes Final

#2 2003-12-18 05:44:33

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#3 2003-12-18 13:09:19

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#4 2003-12-18 13:10:40

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#5 2003-12-18 17:28:01

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#6 2003-12-18 21:47:13

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#7 2003-12-18 21:53:42

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#8 2003-12-18 21:55:15

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#9 2003-12-18 22:09:30

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#10 2003-12-19 10:55:49

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#11 2003-12-19 11:45:55

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#12 2003-12-20 00:15:09

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#13 2003-12-20 00:29:55

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#14 2003-12-20 03:10:52

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#15 2003-12-20 04:43:54

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#16 2003-12-20 14:42:55

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#17 2003-12-20 20:19:44

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#18 2003-12-21 03:32:57

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#19 2003-12-21 04:41:52

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#20 2003-12-21 09:08:04

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#21 2003-12-21 17:50:13

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#22 2003-12-22 04:25:32

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

#23 2003-12-22 04:46:49

Re: 2.6.0 Goes Final

Board footer