On Wednesday 7 December 2005 5:05 pm, Horst von Brand wrote:
> You can certainly keep 2.6.x.y for a while when 2.6.(x+1) shows up, and
> even wait for 2.6.(x+1).1. Note that the stable series maintainers are
> sypmathetic to the idea of doing a last 2.6.x.(y+1), flushing the queued
> patches when 2.6.(x+1) shows up. Is this enough for you?
If a 2.6.x.1 is released and a vulnerability is discovered with the wrong
timing, this leaves us with a kernel that has had little or no testing.
We already had a 2.6.x that didn't even boot on half my servers. When 2.6.x.1
is the first bootable version and a security patch arrives, this leaves me
with an uncomfortable choice between an old, stable and vulnerable version
and a new, shiny and untested one.
Having 2.6.x-1.y and 2.6.x.y would avoid this situation.
--
Bye,
Massimiliano Hofer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
