Re: Kernel version for jessie
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:43:06PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
> > The earlier we freeze the kernel, the more work will be required to
> > backport fixes and hardware enablement during the jessie support period.
> > So I think that 3.16 would be the best fit.
> >
> > It is also very unlikely that a PREEMPT_RT patchset will be available
> > for 3.15 or 3.17, but there probably will be one for 3.16.
> >
> > I won't have time to take on maintenance of another longterm stable
> > branch besides 3.2, so I think it is important that the version we use
> > can be based on a longterm stable branch maintained by someone else. On
> > that basis, I would like to propose to Greg K-H that his next longterm
> > branch be based on 3.16.
> [...]
>
> I did talk to Greg about this, but as you probably all know by now, he
> selected 3.14 as there are other major users with earlier freeze dates
> than us.
>
> Ubuntu 14.10 is planned to use Linux 3.16, in which case Ubuntu will
> maintain a 3.16-stable branch (not blessed by kernel.org, but still
> following the same rules).
>
> So we have a choice between:
>
> Linux 3.14-stable
> - Supported by Greg for about 2 years after release (March 2014)
> - As an official kernel.org branch, it is likely to get some more
> testing and review, and more backports from upstream maintainers
>
> Linux 3.16-stable
> - Supported by Ubuntu kernel team for about 15-18 months after distro
> release (October 2014)
> - Will support more current hardware and need fewer driver backports
>
> Both of these will be supported until about the same time that wheezy
> reaches EOL, which is when I intend to stop maintaining 3.2-stable. At
> that point, I would be prepared to take over maintainership of either of
> the newer branches.
>
> There's not an obvious winner out of these two options, but we should
> choose fairly soon. Please speak up with arguments either way.
I have a slight preference to 3.16 as it gets better MIPS hardware
support (Loongson 3A, newer Octeon boards, etc.). That said it's not
a really strong argument, as I will take advantage of the planned ABI
break to backport these changes.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: