Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

News and discussion about development of the Debian OS itself

Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-25 03:09

I am not trolling... I am simply curious...

Is the primary motivation for including an older kernel with Debian security?? I've been building and using the latest stable kernel on each of my Debian boxes (all on unstable) for quite some time, without any stability issues whatsoever. I haven't really looked into their security in detail, however (I'm no penetration tester). I've built the kernels with forced premption (esp. great for the older machines).

All of my "boxen" run Fluxbox and can run OpenGL reasonably well.
Last edited by andrewrogers on 2013-04-25 03:39, edited 2 times in total.
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby dasein » 2013-04-25 03:12

Learn about the Debian release process:

http://www.debian.org/releases/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases

You'll get all the SNS you want, along with all the breakage you could possibly hope for, some time next month.
User avatar
dasein
 
Posts: 7775
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-25 03:38

dasein wrote:You'll get all the SNS you want, along with all the breakage you could possibly hope for, some time next month.


Sounds like fun!!! :lol:
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-25 03:44

Is Thunderbolt support a possibility? My Ivy Bridge box runs with an ASUS P8Z77-V PRO/Thunderbolt.

lspci shows:
Code: Select all
someuser@somehostname:~$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor DRAM Controller (rev 09)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor PCI Express Root Port (rev 09)
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller (rev 09)
00:14.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB xHCI Host Controller (rev 04)
00:16.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 (rev 04)
00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82579V Gigabit Network Connection (rev 04)
00:1a.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #2 (rev 04)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family High Definition Audio Controller (rev 04)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 1 (rev c4)
00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 3 (rev c4)
00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 4 (rev c4)
00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev c4)
00:1c.7 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 8 (rev c4)
00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 (rev 04)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation Z77 Express Chipset LPC Controller (rev 04)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family 6-port SATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 04)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family SMBus Controller (rev 04)
03:00.0 USB controller: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1042 SuperSpeed USB Host Controller
04:00.0 SATA controller: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1062 Serial ATA Controller (rev 01)
05:00.0 PCI bridge: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1083/1085 PCIe to PCI Bridge (rev 03)
07:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR9485 Wireless Network Adapter (rev 01)


I'm not sure which is the Thunderbolt controller. My board was literally the first one on the market with the new tech (of the PC boards).
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby dilberts_left_nut » 2013-04-25 04:04

andrewrogers wrote:My board was literally the first one on the market with the new tech (of the PC boards).

So, by the time it becomes common enough for the stuff to be affordable, the spec will have changed and your "1st gen" board won't work with anything ... :D
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...
User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
 
Posts: 5077
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-25 04:09

dilberts_left_nut wrote:So, by the time it becomes common enough for the stuff to be affordable, the spec will have changed and your "1st gen" board won't work with anything ... :D


Probably... It would just be nice... It's not like I have a shortage of PCIe slots, but a cool gizmo, nonetheless... I should still be able to use it for Mini DisplayPort.

BTW my kernel now is 3.8.4-vanillaice (with forced preemption *trolololo*). :mrgreen:

I'll build a new kernel soon-ish... It's not like it takes me that long, lol.
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby emariz » 2013-04-25 23:17

To be honest, I do not get it either. I mean, it is not that the Linux kernel version 3.2 has long term support. The kernel version 3.4 was released in May 2012, it has support for two years and yet was not chosen by the Debian Developers. Go figure.
emariz
 
Posts: 2923
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-26 03:58

emariz wrote:To be honest, I do not get it either. I mean, it is not that the Linux kernel version 3.2 has long term support. The kernel version 3.4 was released in May 2012, it has support for two years and yet was not chosen by the Debian Developers. Go figure.


If it's for security patches, I wouldn't mind, but still...

Also, why are you still a blue user? You've posted sooo much! Were you once a part of the forum team?
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-26 04:08

dasein wrote:You'll get all the SNS you want, along with all the breakage you could possibly hope for, some time next month.


Lol, I just got the SNS remark. A new kernel can often fix many hardware issues, though.
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby emariz » 2013-04-26 16:52

andrewrogers wrote:If it's for security patches, I wouldn't mind, but still...

Here is the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Maintenance
The kernel version 3.2 will be maintained by Ben Hutchings until 2015. I only remembered that version 3.4 had long term support; probably because I had been following the news from Greg Kroah-Hartman. My mistake.

andrewrogers wrote:Also, why are you still a blue user? You've posted sooo much! Were you once a part of the forum team?

Well, I am not kosher.
emariz
 
Posts: 2923
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby swirling_vortex » 2013-04-27 13:57

The reason is more due to time than anything else. The decision to use the 3.2 kernel was made back in January of 2012.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/01/msg00012.html

While Wheezy wasn't frozen yet, the 3.4 kernel didn't come out until May 2012.

Right now, everything is still frozen, but once Wheezy is releases, a torrent of packages are going to be flooding testing and unstable. So, if you can wait 2 weeks, new stuff will be coming in soon.

You can also compile your own as well.
User avatar
swirling_vortex
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 2007-02-16 20:30
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby handheldCar » 2013-04-27 23:11

In addition to the explanations above, Unstable is also partially frozen, e.g., Iceweasel.
dasein wrote:Learn about the Debian release process:

http://www.debian.org/releases/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases

I don't see anything that answers the original poster's question.
handheldCar
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 2009-11-27 02:31
Location: North Cackalack

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby thanatos_incarnate » 2013-04-28 08:25

I'd rather have more people work on ironing out those 3.2 kernel bugs and exploits than unwrap a new kernel.
Granted, it would still be nice if Debian had a more active Sid or at least Backports team.
But there are so many distros that can offer bleeding edge.
User avatar
thanatos_incarnate
 
Posts: 717
Joined: 2012-11-04 20:36

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby kedaha » 2013-04-28 10:27

thanatos_incarnate wrote:I'd rather have more people work on ironing out those 3.2 kernel bugs and exploits than unwrap a new kernel.

+1 I couldn't agree more.
It's not every day that I purchase a new computer with the latest hardware :( so I'm not so sure what advantages a shiny new kernel might bring me; I find current stable - squeeze 6.0.7 - is blazing fast as it is even with its "antiquated" ext3 file system. "Upgrade from old stable to current stable" is my motto although I've recently started using wheezy on my main desktop computer. But I'm quite happy,for example, with the 2.6.32-5-amd64 kernel for my 2 laptops and server until I move on to the 3.2 one. Compiling kernels is certainly a way to optimize certain features in a system but in general, I find the stock Debian kernel is suitable for most purposes.
thanatos_incarnate wrote:Granted, it would still be nice if Debian had a more active Sid or at least Backports team.

Stable plus backports - soon to become wheezy + backports - is, imo, the ideal combination for the majority of non-technical users like me :wink: who run self-administered Desktop environments. But since Debian Backports can't do everything, newer packages can be built by SimpleBackportCreation with a view perhaps to contributing by BuildingFormalBackports oneself.
thanatos_incarnate wrote:But there are so many distros that can offer bleeding edge.

They race on ahead like the proverbial Hare; but I - for one - like the Tortoise, am content to plod on wth Debian. :D
"Please accept my resignation. I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".—Groucho Marx
User avatar
kedaha
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:26

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-30 00:59

I'm about to reboot with some more SNS I just built!! I now have 3.9! Built in less than five minutes with the "-j4" argument (for quad-core). :P

I'm running off of the Wheezy, on the Ivy Bridge, ATM... The other two in the signature are unstable. I'll have to update my signature to correct this oversight...

Anyways, back to the topic: Debian definitely works quite well. The only Arch-like configuring I had to do was for my fstab and alsa. The rest of my config files and scripts have been made for my pleasure, because of the free time Debian has given me! :mrgreen:

I haven't had any kernel panics in quite some time and my current uptime on my desktop is 7d 6h and 20m, only restarting when I want to test some SNS. :D

BTW, Google Drive is down at the time of writing. :lol:
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Next

Return to Debian Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

fashionable