Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

EAD · 2006-03-28 13:12:36

Hii this new kernel is out, maybe when I have the time I will make it a pkgbuild.
Is the ARCHck patch good for it?
and when will it be on the Pacman?
:?:

tomk · 2006-03-28 13:48:10

Kernel releases and archck releases work like this:

- a new kernel version is released
- a new ck patch is released
- a new archck patchset is released

Each step relies on the one before, and also of course on how busy Con Kolivas (for ck) and iphitus (for archck) are at the time. ck always includes the 2.6.x.y patch from kernel.org, so what you're looking for is 2.6.16-ck2 first, then 2.6.16-archck2.

Re your last question, it will be "on the Pacman" when it's ready - remember, 2.6.16 is still only in testing.

EAD · 2006-03-28 13:52:55

tomk wrote:

Kernel releases and archck releases work like this:
- a new kernel version is released
- a new ck patch is released
- a new archck patchset is released
Each step relies on the one before, and also of course on how busy Con Kolivas (for ck) and iphitus (for archck) are at the time. ck always includes the 2.6.x.y patch from kernel.org, so what you're looking for is 2.6.16-ck2 first, then 2.6.16-archck2.
Re your last question, it will be "on the Pacman" when it's ready - remember, 2.6.16 is still only in testing.

Amm Tanx!
I got it know, so why does 2.6.16 is still in testing?
Isnt it stable enough?

dtw · 2006-03-28 14:06:32

Kernels rarely move quickly to [current]. Aside from that you can rest assured that the devs are aware of kernel release schedules

pressh · 2006-03-28 14:08:15

EAD wrote:

I got it know, so why does 2.6.16 is still in testing?
Isnt it stable enough?

packages in testing can be either stable or unstable. That's why it is called testing. Moving packages into current without testing could give people who want a stable machine (so only using current/extra) a less stable environment. So that's why it is first tested

EAD · 2006-03-28 14:55:36

amm sure, I love testing, but I think that kernel 2.6.16 is stable for being at base.

polarrr · 2006-03-28 15:13:03

Maybe, but maybe not. They can't just roll out new kernel assuming "it SHOULD be ok." It's kernel, not Speedcrunch. Even tested kernels often come out with slight hiccups. When we had problems with Xorg7, at least people could boot into console, but if kernel is messed up, that "could" cause whole lot of messy fixes. The idea is to be productive in not only tinkering on computers, but with work, study and everything else. Besides, newest kernel doesn't necessarily mean it's a great improvement or new amazing features at every release. Just because it's stable for you doesn't necessarily mean it's stable for everyone. There are hundreds of hardware that need to work with it, it's best thoroughly tested before it gets rolled out. I'm assuming you weren't here when there were problems with essential packages in the past, people get really, I mean really, frustrated and bitchy. It's creates so much problems and frustration among people, it's not worth rushing things out and fix problems later. The last thing Arch needs is getting reputation as an unstable distro.

EAD · 2006-03-28 15:47:56

polarrr wrote:

Maybe, but maybe not. They can't just roll out new kernel assuming "it SHOULD be ok." It's kernel, not Speedcrunch. Even tested kernels often come out with slight hiccups. When we had problems with Xorg7, at least people could boot into console, but if kernel is messed up, that "could" cause whole lot of messy fixes. The idea is to be productive in not only tinkering on computers, but with work, study and everything else. Besides, newest kernel doesn't necessarily mean it's a great improvement or new amazing features at every release. Just because it's stable for you doesn't necessarily mean it's stable for everyone. There are hundreds of hardware that need to work with it, it's best thoroughly tested before it gets rolled out. I'm assuming you weren't here when there were problems with essential packages in the past, people get really, I mean really, frustrated and bitchy. It's creates so much problems and frustration among people, it's not worth rushing things out and fix problems later. The last thing Arch needs is getting reputation as an unstable distro.

Wow, great.
Ok I see now, so I tank you for the good job all the guys in ARCH, and yes I dont want to think ARCH as an unstable linux.

tomk · 2006-03-28 16:12:01

FYI - the testing kernel is now 2.6.16.1.

iphitus · 2006-03-29 06:44:29

Con plans a CK tommorow, and thus, there ought to be an ArchCK package, in the repos, over the weekend.

James

Arch Linux

#1 2006-03-28 13:12:36

Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#2 2006-03-28 13:48:10

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#3 2006-03-28 13:52:55

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#4 2006-03-28 14:06:32

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#5 2006-03-28 14:08:15

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#6 2006-03-28 14:55:36

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#7 2006-03-28 15:13:03

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#8 2006-03-28 15:47:56

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#9 2006-03-28 16:12:01

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

#10 2006-03-29 06:44:29

Re: Kernel 2.6.16.1 is out

Board footer