# Why has gentoo-sources 2.6.35 been masked as unstable?

## alexbuell

Imagine my surprise this morning when kernel 2.6.35 got masked as unstable this morning. I've been using it successfully when it was stable! :p

(edited typo)

Mod Edit: made sticky and added package name to title - tomk

Unstuck, -- pjp 2011.07.03

----------

## disi

I wasn't. Now let's count all the e1000 Intel users as well  :Razz: 

//edit: you have 2.6.35 in the title and 2.6.25 in the post   :Shocked: 

----------

## tomk

 *ChangeLog wrote:*   

> 08 Sep 2010; Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org>
> 
> gentoo-sources-2.6.35-r4.ebuild:
> 
> revert to ~x86 because of several issues

 

I'm assuming it's the problems discussed in bug 334341.

----------

## alexbuell

 *tomk wrote:*   

>  *ChangeLog wrote:*   08 Sep 2010; Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org>
> 
> gentoo-sources-2.6.35-r4.ebuild:
> 
> revert to ~x86 because of several issues 
> ...

 

Ah doesn't affect me, I doesn't use dhcpcd-5.2.7 at the moment.

----------

## rpil

My system works perfect! Is there a problem to stay at 2.6.35?

----------

## d2_racing

No  :Razz: 

----------

## Uli Sing

Yes.  :Evil or Very Mad: 

 :Very Happy: 

----------

## KShots

On what arch was 2.6.35 marked "stable"? I've never seen it stable, and I update nearly every business day... but I run amd64 arch on all my machines.

----------

## ddriver

It was certainly stable on ~x86 a few days ago, because I wouldn't have got it otherwise.

I am now trying to find out what is wrong and whether I should downgrade. I have had a system hang on my desktop machine and several on my Eee PC 701, but don't know what caused them.

----------

## yzg

I updated yesterday and found that gentoo sources will be downgraded to from 2.6.35 to 2.6.34.

```

[ebuild  NS   ] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.34-r6 [2.6.35-r4] USE="-build -deblob -symlink" 186 kB

```

I could not find the reason for doing this.

Do you know why?Last edited by yzg on Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:06 am; edited 1 time in total

----------

## MotivatedTea

Well, gentoo-sources-2.6.34-r6 seems to be the latest stable version. If you had -2.6.35-r4, you must have unmasked it yourself. Check to make sure it's still unmasked.

----------

## RedSquirrel

.35 was marked stable for a brief period, but there are a few issues. You can start by having a look at tomk's post (and the link to the bug report) here.

----------

## yzg

thanks RedSquirrel for the link. But they are confused as well.

It was marked stable for about one week. I did not see any "eselect news" or article on gentoo main page to explain

the downgrade.

I did not have problems with it. There was changes to the USB drivers i/f and I fixed them.

----------

## RedSquirrel

At the very least, there are issues with networking for some users. Naturally, if you find .35 works well, you may add it to package.keywords.

----------

## yzg

It seems that the main issue is dhcpcd-5.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=334341

----------

## tomk

Merged from here.

----------

## Angrychile

...and when will it be stable for amd-64...and x86 again  :Razz: 

----------

## dmpogo

 *Angrychile wrote:*   

> ...and when will it be stable for amd-64...and x86 again 

 

It never was 'stable', and best it was ~arch. Unless I am missing something

----------

## Angrychile

It was stable for x86 for a while, then masked again. I have it right now, but added it to keywords to keep from the downgrade  :Smile:  Anyway, I can't wait for that TurboCore support for my X6  (which is supposrted in .35)

----------

## monsm

Hi,

I have been waiting for a fix to bug 16606, which relates to the sata_sil driver, Silicon Image driver for the old sata chip on my old Asus card.

I noticed this fix in now included in the latest vanilla from this week (linux 2.6.35.5).  Question is:

Is this (an all the other patches) included in the latest gentoo-sources-2-6-35-r8?  Or should I wait a bit more for it?

Any idea?

Mons

----------

## disi

Stupid question:

I am on gentoo-sources-2.6.35-r10 now and still have problems with dhcpcd (either version 4 or 5). 

The 4 refuses to start completely during boot and I have to start it manually from console. This is the worst thing, because wicd on my laptop is totally unuseable by this bug, I have to connect via wpa_supplicant on console and give myself an IP.

The version 5 takes 1-10 attempts to get an IP.

Since 2.6.35-r9 the hanging system on my pentium-m is fixed, but now my Intel graphic chip 915 turns off every now and then (screen goes blank for 1 sec and then comes back every 5-20min).

I am getting nuts here and just wanted to know if you guys are happy?  :Smile: 

If this is the final version and in 2.6.36 those things are not fixed, I will probably build a static kernel based on 2.6.34 before it disappears from portage.

//edit: OK the 2.6.34-r6 is the stable version *puh

I am scared that this 2.6.35 is the version you let loose onto the people. I have it unmasked because it was stable and then masked again and I noticed this bug and tried to fix it on the bug report (which is fixed now). This Intel GPU problem is new since 2.6.35-r10, I will do more testing on that and file another report then...

----------

## Angrychile

Ok...so it's been quite the while and still no stable. Should we just wait for 2.6.36? : )

----------

## d2_racing

Maybe it will be the first time that a see a kernel version that never went stable.

----------

## dmpogo

 *d2_racing wrote:*   

> Maybe it will be the first time that a see a kernel version that never went stable.

 

Is it really the first ?  At least many version came and left very fast

----------

## asturm

Speaking of major kernel versions, it might be the first, since 2.6.36 is going to be stable in a few days time.  :Wink:  Anyway, from what I could grasp we have now reached a predicament where we really should get openrc stabilization going.

----------

## d2_racing

I don't know if OpenRC may get stable in 2010. Maybe in 2011.

----------

## dmpogo

 *genstorm wrote:*   

> Speaking of major kernel versions, it might be the first, since 2.6.36 is going to be stable in a few days time.  Anyway, from what I could grasp we have now reached a predicament where we really should get openrc stabilization going.

 

That seriously scares me

----------

## aCOSwt

I do not remember exactly where but I remember having read that gentoo-sources 2.6.35 would require baselayout 1.12.14

With this understanding, one can intellectually accept that no gentoo-sources 2.6.35 can go stable before one baselayout 1.12.14 goes stable.   :Cool: 

BTW, I actually do not understand the eagerness of going 2.6.35 or 2.6.36 considering the significant performance drops with EXT4 and BTRFS...   :Shocked:   :Shocked: 

As far as I am concerned I will happily wait for at least 2.6.37 before thinking about dropping my UsainBolting 2.6.34-r11   :Razz: 

----------

## asturm

 *d2_racing wrote:*   

> I don't know if OpenRC may get stable in 2010. Maybe in 2011.

 

Well, according to the openrc tracker only mdadm-3.1.4 (which can go arch any hour/day now) and 3 documentation bugs are currently blocking it from stabilization. So... I'd say (hope!) it will definitely be stable in 2011, maybe 2010 already. I mean, I've been happily using it for years now.

@aCOSwt: There's a dual approach to stabilizing 2.6.35, of which a fixed baselayout-1.12.14 is one. But that would still leave us with the e1000e upstream bug that won't be fixed for 2.6.35. So there's a big chance that arch will indeed skip 2.6.35. Can be read here: http://www.mpagano.com/blog/?p=140

----------

## aCOSwt

 *genstorm wrote:*   

> e1000e

 

 :Embarassed:  So stupid I am... I had read umpteenth...   :Very Happy: 

 *genstorm wrote:*   

> ...there's a big chance that arch will indeed skip 2.6.35.

 

Well, I do hope you'll be wrong !

Would it be a matter of basic respect to all those who worked hard for stabilizing it.

It should not be flagged that they worked in vain !

Well... OK ! That's only moral !

Ha bha !

----------

## asturm

In fact, we need a solution with baselayout 1 or 2 anyway to get any dhcpcd >= 5.2.7 as well as kernel past 2.6.34 stable, so none of the hard work will be for nothing. Just not in time before 2.6.36 is there anyway...

EDIT: 2.6.36 out now!  :Very Happy: 

----------

## Joseph K.

Just a note that since I've been testing 2.6.35-r11 my desktop has crashed a couple of times in a few days.  By comparison, I haven't had any similar crashes in a long time.  This is on x86, ATI Radeon, KMS.

----------

## aCOSwt

2.6.35-r12 has been flagged x86 stable yesterday night !   :Cool: 

----------

