---- Declan Moriarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 15:01 -0400, Kevin Day wrote: > > My webmail provider updated the design and it keeps on logging me out > > everytime I send this. Please delete any double posts/ or triple as this is > > my third attempt to send this thing. > > I gave it 20 or so minutes to see if any appeared pm the mailing list. > > > > I was hoping to upload the file to the trac and link them here, but I > > am currently uncertain as to how. BTW. HLFS team, heres that > > community support you were commenting on. I have spent much time > > getting this system working and as far as I can tell it is much more > > stable that the previous one by the hlfs-dev book. As a warning I > > continue to weed out problems that do not relate to pie and other > > security related features added this project by not using the security > > features, everything else is pretty much closely followed. --------- > > > > TOOLCHAIN: I am using 2.6.16.16 as the stable kernel headers for this > > project. This is probably the only 2.6.* kernel in which is worth > > being called stable in any manner. Only use this headers if you want > > a stable kernel. Due to numerous changes in the kernel itself using > > 2.6.12 headers by maz?? will break many things. There are too many > > changes and to many programs uses kernel headers. Most notably is of > > course anything relating to Xorg and Mesa. If you want the 2.6.12 > > headers, do not use a kernel past 2.6.13. This will cause numerous > > problems and I believe many of those problems that recenlty appeared > > to the 2.6.14 are related to this. (The kernel just changes to much > > these days to use *any* kernel headers for *any* version. > > > Hi Kevin, > > First things first: If you want a decent webmail provider, say the word > and I'll send you a gmail invite. They provide top class webmail. > > Second of all, is this an enlightened kick in the backside to anyone > building (glibc or uClibc) to make them do the following? > > 1. change to kernel headers 2.6.16.16 > 2. Use kernel 2.6.16.16 (and only that) with them > > Would this go for LFS as well? > > --
It should, but the problem here is that people argue over only uing a stable kernel headers. The 2.6.12 suggested by the hlfs team, and possibly the lfs team (haven't checked in a while) was the MOST stable at its time. Unfortunately the 2.6.* linux kernels have been anything but stable given how many changes have been happening. 2.6.16 was the first 2.6 kernel to be pushed into a rather stable state (others like 2.6.12 were close, but no cigar...) The main problem is that newer versions of packages are being upgraded at the same time as the kernel. Normally this would not be a problem, but after looking around I noticed that a number of the headers from the 2.6.12 kernel and the 2.6.16 kernels look nothing remotely alike. Anything that tries to compile against tthem may / may not be using the proper functions or even have them available. Newer versions of software that have kernel header requirements will require a newer kernel. Older versions that have been around should be fine. In this case, the most obvious case is stil Xorg. Xorg-6.8.2 wil probably break agains tthe 2.6.16 kernel headers, but Xorg 7.0 will probably break against the 2.6.12 kernel headers. soSomebodymewhere had mentioned that the 2.6.12 kernels and the 2.6.14 kernels were completely different such that the 2.6.14 should be called 2.7.0. This is our problem in a nut-shell. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
