latest release of linux - Suse

This is a discussion on latest release of linux - Suse ; Hi guys, just a quick question. when i see a release such as 2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2 which is the latest version? is the rc2 , leading upto 2.6.23 or is it a 2.6.23 with "extra" development in it? steve...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: latest release of linux

  1. latest release of linux

    Hi guys,


    just a quick question.

    when i see a release such as
    2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2

    which is the latest version?

    is the rc2 , leading upto 2.6.23 or is it a 2.6.23 with "extra"
    development in it?


    steve


  2. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:34:42 +0800, steve wrote:

    > Hi guys,
    >
    >
    > just a quick question.
    >
    > when i see a release such as
    > 2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2
    >
    > which is the latest version?
    >
    > is the rc2 , leading upto 2.6.23 or is it a 2.6.23 with "extra"
    > development in it?
    >
    >
    > steve


    RC anything is the release candidate for that version so the rc2 was
    leading up to the actual 2.6.23 release. If you see a 2.6.23 release with
    no RC or Beta added to it, your looking at the stable released version.
    For some reason and I'm sure they are good reasons, they choose to keep
    the RC's listed long after the actual released version. Check the dates
    and this will clear some of it up.


    Dave

  3. Re: latest release of linux

    steve wrote:
    > Hi guys,
    >
    >
    > just a quick question.
    >
    > when i see a release such as
    > 2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2
    >
    > which is the latest version?
    >
    > is the rc2 , leading upto 2.6.23 or is it a 2.6.23 with "extra"
    > development in it?
    >
    >
    > steve
    >


    www.kernel.org is pretty clear, the first line now states that

    The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.23.1
    The latest prepatch for the stable Linux kernel tree is: 2.6.24-rc2
    (so this is the latest release candidate for 2.6.24 which will be the
    stable version in time)
    The latest snapshot for the stable Linux kernel tree is:
    2.6.24-rc2-git1 (this is the latest snapshot of the rc tree)

    Unless you want to go through bugs and regressions, the 2.6.23.1 is what
    you want, but you might want to stick with the version that SuSE patches
    which is 2.6.22.9-0.4-default for openSUSE 10.3 ( a SuSE patched version
    of 2.6.22) which can be used from Online Update in YAST.



  4. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.suse, in article
    , steve wrote:

    >when i see a release such as
    >2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2
    >
    >which is the latest version?


    Did you look at the file dates? From the directory listing at
    ftp.kernel.org in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/


    57404023 Oct 09 20:48 linux-2.6.23.tar.gz
    57401994 Oct 12 16:47 linux-2.6.23.1.tar.gz

    and in the directory /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/

    57271042 Jul 22 20:59 linux-2.6.23-rc1.tar.gz
    57076816 Aug 04 03:04 linux-2.6.23-rc2.tar.gz
    57092753 Aug 13 04:40 linux-2.6.23-rc3.tar.gz
    57124689 Aug 28 01:58 linux-2.6.23-rc4.tar.gz
    57134231 Sep 01 06:33 linux-2.6.23-rc5.tar.gz
    57123009 Sep 11 03:02 linux-2.6.23-rc6.tar.gz
    57392185 Sep 19 23:27 linux-2.6.23-rc7.tar.gz
    57400479 Sep 25 00:50 linux-2.6.23-rc8.tar.gz
    57399684 Oct 02 03:37 linux-2.6.23-rc9.tar.gz

    What do _you_ think? And why not read the ChangeLog file so you can
    see what is going on.

    4025880 Oct 09 20:38 ChangeLog-2.6.23
    756 Oct 12 16:47 ChangeLog-2.6.23.1

    If you are interested in the absolute _latest kernel, you're obviously
    missing the fact that

    11448 Oct 12 21:15 ChangeLog-2.6.16.55
    51261609 Oct 12 21:18 linux-2.6.16.55.tar.gz

    32624 Oct 17 19:50 ChangeLog-2.6.20.21
    54563668 Oct 17 19:50 linux-2.6.20.21.tar.gz

    14890 Nov 01 02:50 ChangeLog-2.6.16.56
    51262720 Nov 01 02:52 linux-2.6.16.56.tar.gz

    25674 Nov 02 15:53 ChangeLog-2.6.22.11
    56927801 Nov 02 15:53 linux-2.6.22.11.tar.gz

    11078 Nov 05 18:02 ChangeLog-2.6.22.12
    56930075 Nov 05 18:02 linux-2.6.22.12.tar.gz

    12415 Nov 05 21:40 ChangeLog-2.6.16.57
    51263196 Nov 05 21:42 linux-2.6.16.57.tar.gz

    all of _those_ kernels are newer. If you are not a kernel developer,
    or a glutton for punishment, you probably don't want to be using any
    kernel with letter suffixes. You may see 'preN' which is _generally_
    the first cuts - followed by 'rcN' which refers to Release Candidates,
    and even 'testing'.

    Read the ChangeLog. If there is something you need, or are interested
    in - go for it. If not, you may not want to be chasing version numbers
    or release dates. Why do you think distribution kernels are not the
    very latest?

    Old guy

  5. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:34:19 +0800, Craig Andersen wrote
    (in article ):

    > steve wrote:
    >> Hi guys,
    >>
    >>
    >> just a quick question.
    >>
    >> when i see a release such as
    >> 2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2
    >>
    >> which is the latest version?
    >>
    >> is the rc2 , leading upto 2.6.23 or is it a 2.6.23 with "extra"
    >> development in it?
    >>
    >>
    >> steve
    >>

    >
    > www.kernel.org is pretty clear, the first line now states that
    >
    > The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.23.1
    > The latest prepatch for the stable Linux kernel tree is: 2.6.24-rc2
    > (so this is the latest release candidate for 2.6.24 which will be the
    > stable version in time)
    > The latest snapshot for the stable Linux kernel tree is:
    > 2.6.24-rc2-git1 (this is the latest snapshot of the rc tree)
    >
    > Unless you want to go through bugs and regressions, the 2.6.23.1 is what
    > you want, but you might want to stick with the version that SuSE patches
    > which is 2.6.22.9-0.4-default for openSUSE 10.3 ( a SuSE patched version
    > of 2.6.22) which can be used from Online Update in YAST.
    >
    >



    Thanks guys,

    **** that means I spent a 2 weeks making 2.6.23 work on my arm board, and
    another 2 weeks making 2.6.23rc2 work because I thought 2.6.23r2 was better.

    Still it's all part of the learning experience.

    Steve


  6. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:02:29 +0800, Moe Trin wrote
    (in article ):

    > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.suse, in article
    > , steve wrote:
    >
    >> when i see a release such as
    >> 2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2
    >>
    >> which is the latest version?

    >
    > Did you look at the file dates? From the directory listing at
    > ftp.kernel.org in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
    >
    >
    > 57404023 Oct 09 20:48 linux-2.6.23.tar.gz
    > 57401994 Oct 12 16:47 linux-2.6.23.1.tar.gz
    >
    > and in the directory /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/
    >
    > 57271042 Jul 22 20:59 linux-2.6.23-rc1.tar.gz
    > 57076816 Aug 04 03:04 linux-2.6.23-rc2.tar.gz
    > 57092753 Aug 13 04:40 linux-2.6.23-rc3.tar.gz
    > 57124689 Aug 28 01:58 linux-2.6.23-rc4.tar.gz
    > 57134231 Sep 01 06:33 linux-2.6.23-rc5.tar.gz
    > 57123009 Sep 11 03:02 linux-2.6.23-rc6.tar.gz
    > 57392185 Sep 19 23:27 linux-2.6.23-rc7.tar.gz
    > 57400479 Sep 25 00:50 linux-2.6.23-rc8.tar.gz
    > 57399684 Oct 02 03:37 linux-2.6.23-rc9.tar.gz
    >
    > What do _you_ think? And why not read the ChangeLog file so you can
    > see what is going on.
    >
    > 4025880 Oct 09 20:38 ChangeLog-2.6.23
    > 756 Oct 12 16:47 ChangeLog-2.6.23.1
    >
    > If you are interested in the absolute _latest kernel, you're obviously
    > missing the fact that
    >
    > 11448 Oct 12 21:15 ChangeLog-2.6.16.55
    > 51261609 Oct 12 21:18 linux-2.6.16.55.tar.gz
    >
    > 32624 Oct 17 19:50 ChangeLog-2.6.20.21
    > 54563668 Oct 17 19:50 linux-2.6.20.21.tar.gz
    >
    > 14890 Nov 01 02:50 ChangeLog-2.6.16.56
    > 51262720 Nov 01 02:52 linux-2.6.16.56.tar.gz
    >
    > 25674 Nov 02 15:53 ChangeLog-2.6.22.11
    > 56927801 Nov 02 15:53 linux-2.6.22.11.tar.gz
    >
    > 11078 Nov 05 18:02 ChangeLog-2.6.22.12
    > 56930075 Nov 05 18:02 linux-2.6.22.12.tar.gz
    >
    > 12415 Nov 05 21:40 ChangeLog-2.6.16.57
    > 51263196 Nov 05 21:42 linux-2.6.16.57.tar.gz
    >
    > all of _those_ kernels are newer. If you are not a kernel developer,
    > or a glutton for punishment, you probably don't want to be using any
    > kernel with letter suffixes. You may see 'preN' which is _generally_
    > the first cuts - followed by 'rcN' which refers to Release Candidates,
    > and even 'testing'.
    >
    > Read the ChangeLog. If there is something you need, or are interested
    > in - go for it. If not, you may not want to be chasing version numbers
    > or release dates. Why do you think distribution kernels are not the
    > very latest?
    >
    > Old guy


    If i was that smart I would not be asking the question ;-) , however I do
    have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I prefer not to always
    rely on the dates.

    I need to use the latest & greatest , as i am doing development work ,
    specifically on the "arm" range of processors , so I'm afraid punishment is
    what i am getting ,that and several tens of pages of A4 notes, on the
    punishments available in Kernelville

    Thankyou for your reply , I am a lot clearer now.


    Steve






  7. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:15:21 +0800, David W Studeman wrote
    (in article <4735a0d9$0$3570$815e3792@news.qwest.net>):

    > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:34:42 +0800, steve wrote:
    >
    >> Hi guys,
    >>
    >>
    >> just a quick question.
    >>
    >> when i see a release such as
    >> 2.6.23 and 2.6.23rc2
    >>
    >> which is the latest version?
    >>
    >> is the rc2 , leading upto 2.6.23 or is it a 2.6.23 with "extra"
    >> development in it?
    >>
    >>
    >> steve

    >
    > RC anything is the release candidate for that version so the rc2 was
    > leading up to the actual 2.6.23 release. If you see a 2.6.23 release with
    > no RC or Beta added to it, your looking at the stable released version.
    > For some reason and I'm sure they are good reasons, they choose to keep
    > the RC's listed long after the actual released version. Check the dates
    > and this will clear some of it up.
    >
    >
    > Dave


    Thanks for the help dave.

    steve


  8. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.suse, in article
    , steve wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote


    >> Did you look at the file dates? From the directory listing at
    >> ftp.kernel.org in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/


    >> and in the directory /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/


    >> Read the ChangeLog. If there is something you need, or are interested
    >> in - go for it. If not, you may not want to be chasing version numbers
    >> or release dates. Why do you think distribution kernels are not the
    >> very latest?


    >If i was that smart I would not be asking the question ;-)


    OK - I'll give you that one ;-)

    >however I do have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I
    >prefer not to always rely on the dates.


    Hmmm, not easy to get them to that date without real effort. However
    kernel.org seems to have people with clue watching over the servers,
    and the "current" trees seem to be relatively accurate. The problem is
    that there are several different lines being maintained, in addition
    to the very latest. That's why 2.6.16.57 (the 57th update of the
    2.6.16 kernel), 2.6.20.21, and 2.6.22.12 exist along with the bleeding
    edge 2.6.23.1. For that matter, 2.4.35.3 is also "current" and 2.4.36
    is at the 'pre1' stage. (Heck, 2.0.40 and 2.2.26 were released in 2004,
    and there is a 2.2.27-rc2 dated from 2005.)

    A good thing to know is

    [compton ~]$ whatis finger
    finger (1) - user information lookup program
    [compton ~]$ /usr/bin/finger kernel@kernel.org
    [kernel.org]
    The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.23.1
    The latest prepatch for the stable Linux kernel tree is: 2.6.24-rc2
    The latest snapshot for the stable Linux kernel tree is: 2.6.24-rc2-git1
    The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.35.3
    The latest prepatch for the 2.4 Linux kernel tree is: 2.4.36-pre1
    The latest 2.2 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.2.26
    The latest prepatch for the 2.2 Linux kernel tree is: 2.2.27-rc2
    The latest -mm patch to the stable Linux kernels is: 2.6.23-mm1
    [compton ~]$

    >I need to use the latest & greatest , as i am doing development work ,
    >specifically on the "arm" range of processors , so I'm afraid punishment
    >is what i am getting ,that and several tens of pages of A4 notes, on the
    >punishments available in Kernelville


    I can't advise you there, as I don't know what your customers want.
    But I'd think, given the frequency of kernel releases, that the latest
    and greatest may not be ideal. Pick something relatively solid unless
    you like making new builds every 2 - 3 weeks. I'd also recommend
    reading those changelogs. Some of the changes are in code for other
    processors or services that wouldn't effect you, and thus could be
    ignored. 'grep' is your friend.

    Old guy

  9. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:14:23 -0600, Moe Trin wrote:

    >>however I do have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I
    >>prefer not to always rely on the dates.

    >
    > Hmmm, not easy to get them to that date without real effort.


    Clearing or resetting the BIOS clock and saving the files with the current
    date will do it :-)

  10. Re: latest release of linux

    On 11 Nov 2007 11:11:21 +0100, Mark South
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:14:23 -0600, Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    >>>however I do have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I
    >>>prefer not to always rely on the dates.

    >>
    >> Hmmm, not easy to get them to that date without real effort.

    >
    >Clearing or resetting the BIOS clock and saving the files with the current
    >date will do it :-)


    If you are in Linux, isn't there a command line applet that allows one
    to change file attributes at this level? "Touch" or the like?

    Hell, even in DOS or windows, one does not have to re-save the file as
    there is an applet that allows it to be changed without such a hassle.

  11. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 03:10:33 -0800, ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

    > On 11 Nov 2007 11:11:21 +0100, Mark South
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:14:23 -0600, Moe Trin wrote:
    >>
    >>>>however I do have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I
    >>>>prefer not to always rely on the dates.
    >>>
    >>> Hmmm, not easy to get them to that date without real effort.

    >>
    >>Clearing or resetting the BIOS clock and saving the files with the current
    >>date will do it :-)

    >
    > If you are in Linux, isn't there a command line applet that allows one
    > to change file attributes at this level? "Touch" or the like?


    Yes, "touch * " will do the trick, and has for centuries been the standard
    way to get make to realise that it should run again.

  12. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.suse, in article
    <9modj3teh1hjlb6g5den3eqpulb2janbde@4ax.com>, ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

    >Mark South


    >>Moe Trin wrote:


    >>>>however I do have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I
    >>>>prefer not to always rely on the dates.
    >>>
    >>> Hmmm, not easy to get them to that date without real effort.

    >>
    >>Clearing or resetting the BIOS clock and saving the files with the
    >>current date will do it :-)


    Are you SURE about that? Date/time is kept in the BIOS in a BCD format
    of CCYY MM DD HH MM SS over the range 1900 01 01 00 00 00 to 2099 12
    31 23 59 59. Windoze (and DOS before it) did time from 01/01/1980
    because DOS wasn't even invented until 1981, and the PC didn't get
    a realtime clock until the PC-AT in 1983 (although you could buy an
    expansion card for your XT). If you can _disable_ the BIOS clock,
    or the command that sets the system (kernel) clock at boot time, the
    time would default to starting from the UNIX epoch (1/1/1970 00:00:00
    UTC).

    >If you are in Linux, isn't there a command line applet that allows one
    >to change file attributes at this level? "Touch" or the like?


    [compton ~]$ which touch
    /bin/touch
    [compton ~]$ whatis touch
    touch (1) - change file timestamps
    [compton ~]$

    >Hell, even in DOS or windows, one does not have to re-save the file as
    >there is an applet that allows it to be changed without such a hassle.


    I don't recall a 'touch' equivalent in DOS - I recall using Norton
    Utilities or something...

    TOUCH.ARC 03-26-88 CHANGE DOS DATE/TIME STAMP TO YOUR CHOICE. 2048
    ADATER.COM 12-03-85 CHANGES DATES/TIMES ON FILES 1024
    FDATE.COM 11-25-84 RESET FILE TIME AND DATE 1664

    That's from a 1991 file list at a shareware site.

    Old guy

  13. Re: latest release of linux

    On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:14:02 -0600, ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe
    Trin) wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.suse, in article
    ><9modj3teh1hjlb6g5den3eqpulb2janbde@4ax.com>, ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
    >
    >>Mark South

    >
    >>>Moe Trin wrote:

    >
    >>>>>however I do have files marked as 1970 for kernel releases , so I
    >>>>>prefer not to always rely on the dates.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hmmm, not easy to get them to that date without real effort.
    >>>
    >>>Clearing or resetting the BIOS clock and saving the files with the
    >>>current date will do it :-)

    >
    >Are you SURE about that? Date/time is kept in the BIOS in a BCD format
    >of CCYY MM DD HH MM SS over the range 1900 01 01 00 00 00 to 2099 12
    >31 23 59 59. Windoze (and DOS before it) did time from 01/01/1980
    >because DOS wasn't even invented until 1981, and the PC didn't get
    >a realtime clock until the PC-AT in 1983 (although you could buy an
    >expansion card for your XT). If you can _disable_ the BIOS clock,
    >or the command that sets the system (kernel) clock at boot time, the
    >time would default to starting from the UNIX epoch (1/1/1970 00:00:00
    >UTC).
    >
    >>If you are in Linux, isn't there a command line applet that allows one
    >>to change file attributes at this level? "Touch" or the like?

    >
    >[compton ~]$ which touch
    >/bin/touch
    >[compton ~]$ whatis touch
    >touch (1) - change file timestamps
    >[compton ~]$
    >
    >>Hell, even in DOS or windows, one does not have to re-save the file as
    >>there is an applet that allows it to be changed without such a hassle.

    >
    >I don't recall a 'touch' equivalent in DOS - I recall using Norton
    >Utilities or something...
    >
    >TOUCH.ARC 03-26-88 CHANGE DOS DATE/TIME STAMP TO YOUR CHOICE. 2048
    >ADATER.COM 12-03-85 CHANGES DATES/TIMES ON FILES 1024
    >FDATE.COM 11-25-84 RESET FILE TIME AND DATE 1664
    >
    >That's from a 1991 file list at a shareware site.
    >
    > Old guy


    Any good hex editor would also allow it. If included in one's standard
    fileset (I didn't say it was part of DOS), then would be "an applet" as I
    mentioned before. So, yes, there were several, if not several tens of
    "applets" in the DOS realm that were capable of this feat.

+ Reply to Thread