# Tuxonice vanishing?

## Nicias

Tuxonice-sources has no stable version. Is obsolete? If so, should I just switch to gentoo-sources? (I'm using amd64)

----------

## Hypnos

Looks like the most recent stable version, 3.8.13, was removed.  This is the one I use currently.

What's annoying is that there is no tuxonice-sources version that corresponds to a stable gentoo-sources .  The closest are tuxonice-source-3.10.18 and gentoo-sources-3.10.17 .

----------

## dmpogo

 *Nicias wrote:*   

> Tuxonice-sources has no stable version. Is obsolete? If so, should I just switch to gentoo-sources? (I'm using amd64)

 

Honestly I do not recall tuxonice-sources being ever stable matching recent stable gentoo-sources - they always lived their separate life.

For years I used just to patch gentoo-sources myself with tuxonice patches.

On the other hand, there is new tendency in Gentoo not to have stable sources in anything but the one latest stable branch, 3.10 currently.

For example there are no stable source in (still alive) long term 3.4 branch.  Quiet different policy than in 2.6 days, where there would be 5-6 

versions of the stable kernel at a time, covering both recent and long-term branches.  Perhaps current situation with tuxonice (removal of anything marked stable) is reflection of this new approach.

----------

## Hypnos

 *dmpogo wrote:*   

> Honestly I do not recall tuxonice-sources being ever stable matching recent stable gentoo-sources - they always lived their separate life.

 

Correct -- if there was not a stable tuxonice-sources (which happened in the past as well), i would pick an unstable one corresponding to a stable gentoo-sources version.

----------

## TomWij

 *Nicias wrote:*   

> Tuxonice-sources has no stable version. Is obsolete? If so, should I just switch to gentoo-sources? (I'm using amd64)

 

A lot of sources aren't stabilized as Gentoo cannot guarantee stability and/or security on them.

 *Hypnos wrote:*   

> Looks like the most recent stable version, 3.8.13, was removed.  This is the one I use currently.

 

Yes, this version is quite insecure and has already been masked and removed from gentoo-sources a while ago.

 *Hypnos wrote:*   

> What's annoying is that there is no tuxonice-sources version that corresponds to a stable gentoo-sources .  The closest are tuxonice-source-3.10.18 and gentoo-sources-3.10.17 .

 

The difference between 3.10.17 and 3.10.18 is rather small; so, you can definitely accept keywords on 3.10.18 and assume it to be as stable as 3.10.17.

 *dmpogo wrote:*   

> On the other hand, there is new tendency in Gentoo not to have stable sources in anything but the one latest stable branch, 3.10 currently.

 

The architecture teams don't have enough man power to do this extensively; and for another reason, we've had some versions cut from the tree due to security issues as well.

 *Hypnos wrote:*   

> Correct -- if there was not a stable tuxonice-sources (which happened in the past as well), i would pick an unstable one corresponding to a stable gentoo-sources version.

 

+1 Amen.

----------

## Nicias

So, I should unmask a tuxonice that is near (and hopefully after) a gentoo-sources?

----------

## dmpogo

 *TomWij wrote:*   

> 
> 
>  *dmpogo wrote:*   On the other hand, there is new tendency in Gentoo not to have stable sources in anything but the one latest stable branch, 3.10 currently. 
> 
> The architecture teams don't have enough man power to do this extensively; and for another reason, we've had some versions cut from the tree due to security issues as well.
> ...

 

Sure, and I understand in the case of tuxonice and other non-central branches it is a fully appropriate position.  However, with long term gentoo-sources,

by not providing stable update to long-term kernels, I think gentoo is shooting itself in the foot with the crowd  that wants to run gentoo on production machines. I, for one, having running 3.4 on several of my servers, would be much happier to see once in a half a year stable update to this branch, instead of weekly appearance of new ~amd64  update.

----------

## Hypnos

TomWij,

Thanks for the straight dope.  I upgraded to 3.10.18 today with no apparent issues.

Perhaps there's a way to reduce the maintenance burden and have tuxonice-sources more up-to-date -- maybe only support tuxonice kernel versions that match KV_MINOR of a stable gentoo-sources kernel, with KV_PATCH equal or greater?  E.g., tuxonice-sources-3.10.18 corresponding to gentoo-sources-3.10.x .

----------

## TomWij

 *dmpogo wrote:*   

> Sure, and I understand in the case of tuxonice and other non-central branches it is a fully appropriate position.  However, with long term gentoo-sources,
> 
> by not providing stable update to long-term kernels, I think gentoo is shooting itself in the foot with the crowd  that wants to run gentoo on production machines. I, for one, having running 3.4 on several of my servers, would be much happier to see once in a half a year stable update to this branch, instead of weekly appearance of new ~amd64  update.

 

We're now at 3.12.0; we have stabilized two kernels in the 3.10 LTS branch, more specifically 3.10.7 and 3.10.17 much more often than once half a year, I don't see the problem.

 *Hypnos wrote:*   

> Perhaps there's a way to reduce the maintenance burden and have tuxonice-sources more up-to-date -- maybe only support tuxonice kernel versions that match KV_MINOR of a stable gentoo-sources kernel, with KV_PATCH equal or greater?  E.g., tuxonice-sources-3.10.18 corresponding to gentoo-sources-3.10.x .

 

Keeping an older version around is not much of a burden; it's because people use it, so we can't just go out and wipe all of them as it would force everyone to upgrade. That's why we only remove the really old and really secure versions to only have people upgrade whom really need to (or should have upgraded a long time ago).

As for newer versions; it depends on how fast upstream is with supporting the new release, how fast the maintainers spot that or how fast the maintainer can forward port it.Last edited by TomWij on Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total

----------

