Important kernel update should not break stuff
npajkovs at redhat.com
Wed Jun 13 12:49:25 UTC 2012
Roman Kennke <rkennke at redhat.com> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 13:05 +0100 schrieb Johannes Lips:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Roman Kennke <rkennke at redhat.com>
>> > Today something happened, that happens over and over again
>> with Fedora,
>> > and it makes me angry. I am running Fedora 17, and so far it
>> worked well
>> > with the initial kernel 3.3.x (except that it would panic on
>> > but that was not important to me, but still embarassing).
>> Today I was
>> > notified of an important security update in the kernel.
>> Curiously, it
>> > would update from 3.3 to 3.4 (a major version upgrade, which
>> should not
>> > happen in such a core package anyway, IMO). Reboot into the
>> new kernel,
>> > everything comes up --- until I want to actually want to
>> read email,
>> > surf web, or anything that requires my network. I am on an
>> Intel Wifi
>> > card, iwlwifi module. I *can* connect to the network, but
>> everything is
>> > suuuuuuper slow or times-out every now and then. Completely
>> > Reboot into the older kernel, things work well again. Now I
>> am left with
>> > the choice of running a new kernel w/o network or an
>> unsecure kernel.
>> > Thank you very much!
>> > This sort of thing I would expect in rawhide/development
>> builds, but not
>> > in a supposed-to-be stable release. I can understand the
>> underlying idea
>> > of being on the bleeding edge, but I don't want to actually
>> be bleeding.
>> > At least the base system components should not undergo major
>> > updates. Security fixes should be backported to the software
>> > that is in the stable release (1 year release cycle
>> shouldn't be too
>> > demanding for this), and only security fixes and absolutely
>> > fixes should go into stable releases. (Not to mention that
>> some fixes
>> > that I *would* consider important enough to go into stable
>> never end up
>> > there.) If major version updates are really really
>> necessary, they
>> > should undergo serious testing. I cannot believe that I am
>> the only one
>> > on an Intel Wifi chip. The way it is now, Fedora feels like
>> a constantly
>> > rolling development version that is almost unusable (because
>> any update,
>> > even security, has a fairly high risk of breaking things)
>> for day-to-day
>> > work.
>> > Bugzilla report:
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831571
>> Since I just received an email in private pointing out that
>> emails like
>> mine above might be discouraging and not helpful... let me
>> apologize for
>> this. My intention is not to bash other people's best efforts,
>> instead try to help out (otherwise I would not bother to
>> diligently file
>> bugreports and mention my concerns on this list). I am willing
>> to help
>> track down and fix the problem. However, I see a more general
>> and maybe we can turn this into a discussion how to address
>> (or answer)
>> - Why do we allow new major versions of core components into a
>> release? What sort of testing is performed before a major
>> kernel update
>> hits Fedora stable?
>> - What is the policy with regards to risky changes (like
>> feature updates, ABI changes, etc) in stable?
>> - How can problems like the one I described above be avoided?
>> Is there
>> anything I and others can help with?
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> I think the reason for shipping the latest upstream kernel is based on
>> the fact that backporting would be too much work.
>> Gives a good overview and probably prevents us from repeating
>> arguments in the discussion.
> Ok, fair enough. The question remains, how can we avoid such bad things
> to happen in the future? Should I regularily try out kernel builds on
> their way to stable, and object to their stable-release when I find a
> problem? And how would I do that? (I.e. how can I find out when a new
> kernel is about to go to stable, and when to test it, etc) And what
> about the other base components of the system? (Although, to be fair,
> the kernel seems to be the most problematic one..)
imo, kernel maintainers should have released 3.3.8 or 3.4.1, not 3.4.0
More information about the devel