Re: 2.4 & 2.6 kernels, should sarge be 2.6 only at least for powerpc ?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and are
> > unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217). How should
> > we deal with them in the BTS?
> The real question here is to ask ourselves what is our option for the
> sarge release. Will we release with 2.4 as default, which is the track
> we are on right now, or will we release with 2.6 as default, and keep
> 2.4 about only as backup in case there is a real problem with 2.4.
While this is an important question (and I'll comment more on it below)
it's pretty much irrelevant to the kind of bugs I was thinking about
when writing this mail. I was only thinking about bugs which are
extremly hard to fix in 2.4 and thus are a) a lot of work and b) don't
haev much of a chance upstream, like the removal of the 32bit groups
limit. For other reported bugs that require less work I wouldn't just
declare them wontfix as long as the 2.4 kernels are considered supported
> -> oldworld pmac : We need to shrink the size of the kernel so it
> fits on a miboot floppy and test it. This should be best achieved by
> modularizing the pmac-ide driver, and other pmac stuff which could
> be modularized. Benh said he scarcely has time for it, and Christoph
> promised he would have a look.
I've done a patch but it doesn't work. I'll try to investigate it
> -> apus : Well, a 2.6 port could be done and tested, using a
> conditionally applied patch or something such, or merging the
> patches. That said, since there are at most 5-10 users left, and
> those are using their own kernels, maybe we should drop kernel
> support for them.
What's the status of apus on 2.6? I saw Roman posting patches for apus
on linuxppc-dev and IIRC they got applied. Are there more than those
patches required? What's the status of apus for recent 2.4.x?