

Linux 4.1 released - conductor
https://lwn.net/Articles/648911/

======
iso8859-1
4.1 merge window

part 1 [http://lwn.net/Articles/640297/](http://lwn.net/Articles/640297/)

part 2 [http://lwn.net/Articles/641016/](http://lwn.net/Articles/641016/)

part 3 [http://lwn.net/Articles/642039/](http://lwn.net/Articles/642039/)

------
pella
Why "unstable" on Ubuntu?

[http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-
ppa/mainline/v4.1-unstable/](http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-
ppa/mainline/v4.1-unstable/)

~~~
ploxiln
I'm not sure how you ended up looking in that particular folder. Here's
another folder in that tree:

[http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-
ppa/mainline/v4.1-rc2-vivid...](http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-
ppa/mainline/v4.1-rc2-vivid/)

The thing at the end is the Ubuntu "distribution" aka "release" (for that
v4.1-rc2, "vivid vervet" aka 15.04). So in this case "unstable" really refers
to the ubuntu "distribution channel", not the kernel itself.

But really, you should expect it to take at least a few days to migrate to a
more "stable" "distribution channel". On Arch Linux, they often don't migrate
it before the "x.x.1" release. That's because they make sure various out-of-
tree kernel modules are still working, and they sometimes do need to apply a
patch to fix a strange issue related to some hardware that's being used
slightly differently, and isn't caught until after the "x.x.0" release which
gains much wider usage than the release-candidates.

Ubuntu isn't even a rolling-release distro like Arch is, so what you linked to
is a special repo you can add for super up-to-date kernels if you really want
them for some reason. But if you have no particular reason, you shouldn't
bother. There can always be unexpected complications, usually involving
closed-source kernel modules (nvidia, amd catalyst, vmware) or buggy hardware
(but of course a linux enthusiast would say that ;)

------
chmielewski
Regardless of whether you are running Ubuntu, Debian or anything else with
dpkg, you can install the latest Linux kernels using
[http://liquorix.net/](http://liquorix.net/) no matter if you are on Old
Stable, Experimental or something in-between.

------
vezzy-fnord
No kdbus yet, though it did enter its latest review cycle recently?

~~~
corbet
There hasn't been another review cycle, but my expectation is that it will be
proposed for merging again this time around. Should be interesting to watch...

~~~
anon4
Given that kdbus support was merged[1] in mainline systemd, I feel the
situation is one of "I see you're not merging my friend's patches... would be
a shame if the only remaining implementation of init would support only slow-
dbus or kdbus..."

[1] [http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-
devel/2015-Jun...](http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-
devel/2015-June/033170.html)

~~~
comex
systemd has been using slow-dbus, via libdbus, for who knows how long. Now it
will use slow-dbus via sd-bus. Hard to imagine how that could possibly amount
to a threat.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
They've actually been using sd-bus for about two years now. What's new is that
kdbus support is now build-time mandatory.

------
nisa
I hope btrfs is more stable now... We've had problems with Linux 4.0.x

~~~
voltagex_
Can you elaborate?

~~~
nisa
We saw this on several machines:
[https://gist.github.com/anonymous/e693eb68cfedace84025](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/e693eb68cfedace84025)

------
0xMLR
And it seems that Solus is the first distribution to adopt it.
[http://linux.softpedia.com/blog/solus-is-the-first-os-to-
get...](http://linux.softpedia.com/blog/solus-is-the-first-os-to-get-linux-
kernel-4-1-lts-484950.shtml)

~~~
tanderson92
Any distribution that doesn't ship modifications to the kernel immediately
"adopts" the latest kernel on release, whatever that means. For example,
Exherbo had it immediately since users are directed to download their kernel
sources from kernel.org; ignoring that, the package for the kernel headers
(for building e.g. libc) also were updated nearly immediately, from the main
git repo:

commit 629e1b2b1d30608e3b3af74de0c7a220009bba54

Author: Timo Gurr <tgurr@exherbo.org>

Date: Mon Jun 22 18:49:20 2015 +0200

    
    
        linux-headers: version bump to 4.1
    

I'm also not sure how you can claim a linux distro is the first without
exhaustively checking all others. As you can see, it is highly probable Solus
was not the first.

