Bug 323463

Summary:	Request to reinstate linux-headers-2.6.32
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	kfm
Component:	[OLD] Core system	Assignee:	Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers <toolchain>
Status:	RESOLVED INVALID
Severity:	trivial	CC:	ago, barzog, flyser42, jaak, kernel
Priority:	High
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description kfm 2010-06-10 18:37:15 UTC

My reason for making this request is that 2.6.32 is the current long-term stable branch, meaning that it will be receive further patches for quite some time to come. As such, and given that it's a fairly strong release, it's an ideal choice for those who grow weary of the unexpected surprises yielded by each new short-lived 'stable' release. I use it, and I'm sure others do - not least hardened users as 2.6.32 remains the designated stable branch with an updated release only recently committed after a lengthy hiatus. The corresponding vanilla-sources release will obviously continue to be maintained also.

If these headers remain available, it will spare us the uncertainty caused by installing system-wide headers that are in advance of the running kernel. My concern is that we might eventually reach a situation where incompatible headers are designated stable with no fallback option formally present in the portage tree ... before 2.6.32.x is formally retired upstream. At least if they are there, they can be 'pinned' where needed.

Comment 1 kfm 2010-06-10 19:00:55 UTC

Just to add that the grsecurity maintainers have promised to support 2.6.32 long-term also:

http://grsecurity.net/news.php#stablechosen

Comment 2 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2010-06-13 00:25:32 UTC

the kernel sources have no real bearing on the headers

Comment 3 Jaak Ristioja 2010-06-17 17:57:18 UTC

So
  1) downgrading linux-headers and recompiling glibc or
  2) using linux-headers newer than the kernel and recompiling glibc
are both safe operations and wont render any production servers inoperable?

Comment 4 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2010-06-17 18:12:24 UTC

i dont know why you're so concerned with wasting time on rebuilding glibc, but no, neither of those operations are dangerous

Comment 5 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2010-06-28 21:17:17 UTC

*** Bug 325979 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2010-11-29 20:44:07 UTC

*** Bug 347149 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2012-06-25 17:43:49 UTC

*** Bug 423325 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***