Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
- To: Andreas Barth <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Serious issues with linux-2.6 (was: Re: Scheduling linux-2.6 2.6.18-3)
- From: Steve Langasek <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:02:45 -0500
- Message-id: <20061012150245.GA21030@mauritius.dodds.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20061012115853.GC2926@mails.so.argh.org>
- References: <20061010115358.GD12664@mail.lowpingbastards.de> <20061012104100.GA14735@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20061012115853.GC2926@mails.so.argh.org>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Bastian Blank (firstname.lastname@example.org) [061012 12:41]:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > Two big issues are still open:
> > > - hppa FTBFS
> > > - alpha gcc-4.0 build dependency
> > What should we do with them? Finally disable alpha and hppa(64)?
> I don't think it is an option to ship Debian without hppa and alpha
> So, the only two options seem to me:
> a) someone fixes these issues, or
> b) we ship with what we have in etch now, that is 2.6.17.
The gcc-4.0 build-dependency is not new in 2.6.18, the current kernel in
testing has the same issue. And I can see no reason to treat this as RC.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.