It's seen a few weeks of testing, all is quiet now, solves a few previously unsolved bugs in 2.6.19.
I'd also like to request vanilla-sources-2.6.20.6 stable at the same time. I know it hasn't been in the tree very long, but it should be fine since gentoo-sources-2.6.20-r5 is based on the same patchset. Thanks!
2.6.20 doesnt boot on arm atm ;x
ppc64 done
You directly stabled it for sparc by carrying over -r4 keywords. Anyway it's fine this time.
on x86: $ uname -srp Linux 2.6.20-gentoo-r5 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ no regressions so far...
Marked ppc stable.
Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on x86, too. I think about rc2.
(In reply to comment #7) > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > x86, too. I think about rc2. > Yes Diego said we want -rc3 for 2.6.20.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > > x86, too. I think about rc2. > Yes Diego said we want -rc3 for 2.6.20. Ok. But that still has open issues. Can anyone verify if they should hold us back?
(In reply to comment #7) > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > x86, too. I think about rc2. > Out of interest, why?
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Apart from the wakeup issues: A newer alsa-driver has to go stable at least on > > x86, too. I think about rc2. > > > > Out of interest, why? Why what? Newer alsa-driver, because current stable fails. rc2 because it has no open bugs and succeeds on 2.6.20. rc3 is ok if the issues are non-issues.
(In reply to comment #11) > Why what? Newer alsa-driver, because current stable fails. Fails in what way?
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Why what? Newer alsa-driver, because current stable fails. > > Fails in what way? It is not intended to work with .20, according to Ticho, so we need a newer one.
2.6.20-r5 doesn't boot half the time for me (amd64). I think its still got some issues with the MCP51 chipset; see http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/748576
Please file a bug for your issues.
We decided against switching to 2.6.20 simply because we are too close to the release and don't want to spend the time validating a completely new kernel. Maybe next time.
^ above comment was in reference to 2007.0 arch teams, now that we aren't under pressure in terms of that release, please hold off on this until -r6, which I'll release later today (hopefully)
(In reply to comment #17) > ^ above comment was in reference to 2007.0 > > arch teams, now that we aren't under pressure in terms of that release, please > hold off on this until -r6, which I'll release later today (hopefully) > That will of course mean that -r6 will need to be tested for a month or so.
-r6 is out. theres no need for a months testing, the patch acceptance criteria is very strict. This is entirely an incremental release (and minimal).
OK, then. 2.6.20-r6 looks ok from my side. Needs alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2 or later (I have tested _rc2, _rc2-r1 and _rc3).
x86 stable
Looks like Christian forgot to stabilize newer alsa-driver. Did so now, 1.0.14_rc2 is marked stable on x86.
In future please file a dedicated bug (with full info, i.e. the compile error) when a stable tree package does not compile against a candidate kernel. I do track these, and would have taken care of ALSA personally if a bug had been filed earlier.
amd64 stable
