From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264373AbUEIS4R (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2004 14:56:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264377AbUEIS4Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2004 14:56:16 -0400 Received: from ns.clanhk.org ([69.93.101.154]:62417 "EHLO mail.clanhk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264373AbUEIS4N (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2004 14:56:13 -0400 Message-ID: <409E7E74.9040702@clanhk.org> Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 13:54:44 -0500 From: "J. Ryan Earl" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timothy Miller Cc: Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Distributions vs kernel development References: <20040507085312.3247d70d@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <409BC735.2060308@techsource.com> In-Reply-To: <409BC735.2060308@techsource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Timothy Miller wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> After having being burned twice: first by Mandrake and supermount, >> and second >> by SuSe and reiserfs attributes; are any of the distributions >> committed to >> making sure that their distribution will run the standard kernel? >> (ie. 2.6.X from >> kernel.org). > > > I use Gentoo for this. As do I, I've never had a problem with a Vanilla kernel or one of Gentoo's maintained kernels. Gentoo actually supports the 2.6 kernel, at least on AMD64 hardware that's all they support. Though the vanilla kernels -do- work flawlessly, I still prefer the Gentoo patched kernels: >>> Unpacking linux-2.6.5.tar.bz2 to /var/tmp/portage/gentoo-dev-sources-2.6.5-r1/work * genpatches-2.6-5.29-base.tar.bz2 unpacked * genpatches-2.6-5.29-extras.tar.bz2 unpacked * Applying gentoo-dev-sources-2.6.5.CAN-2004-0109.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 1105_CAN-2004-0075-usb-vicam.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 1305_x86_64-2.6.5-rc3.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 1310_k8_cardbus_io.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 1315_alpha-sysctl-uac.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 1905_bluetooth-oops.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 2110_bcm5700_broadcom_gigabit_drvr_11272003.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 2115_fa311-mac-address-fix.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 2320_adaptec_dpt_i2o.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 2325_3ware-cmds_per_lun.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 2705_powernow-k8-acpi.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 3110_low-latency-cond_resched.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 3305_am9-2.6.4.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 3310_cfq-4.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4105_lirc_infrared-2.6.5-rc2.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4505_bootsplash-3.1.4-2.6.5-rc2.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4705_squashfs-1.3r3.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4710_lufs-0.9.7-2.6.0-test9.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4715_supermount-2.0.4-2.6.5_rc1.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4720_gcloop-2.6-20040330.patch... [ ok ] * Applying 4905_speakup_accessibility.patch... [ ok ] >>> Source unpacked. The k8/x86_64, broadcom, and bootsplash patches in particular make me happy. They tend to stay within one or two minor kernel revisions of the current branch. I've had production 2.6 servers for months. -ryan