On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:09 PM, John Schmidt wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 07:54, Holger Levsen wrote:Hi, On Saturday 16 December 2006 00:52, Sven Luther wrote:But why? People can install with 2.4 just fine and then later upgradeto 2.6, so why do the work and backport it?Because even when using 2.4 floppies, they will install the 2.6.8kernels, so it is best to have the same kernel for installation media andreboot kernels.As I don't know of any hardware that a.) needs to boot from floppy and b.) doesnt work with 2.4 but only with 2.6 I still don't see a good reason todo the work and do a rebuild of the _sarge_ miboot-floppies.I have an oldworld ppc that can't boot from cdrom that would benefit fromsarge miboot floppies.
Actually, you (and I) *can* boot our oldworld PowerMacs from the 2.4 miboot floppyset. And we can install Sarge from there. We can even use it to install a 2.6.8 kernel.
Not to put words into his mouth, but I think that is what Holger is saying. For the purpose the Sarge floppyset serves, it's enough to have just a 2.4 kernel for the installer.
On the other hand, what Sven is saying seems (again, not to put words in his mouth) to be that, as long as we're going to encourage the user to install a 2.6 kernel eventually, it would be cleaner/nicer/ more-elegant to start them off with a 2.6 kernel from the beginning in the installer.
Holger seems to reply "Why bother?"My thought (admittedly a bit of a stretch) is that there *may* be hardware out there (SATA disks?) that a user can plug into an OldWorld PowerMac PCI slot that is not supported by the 2.4 kernel, but is supported by the 2.6 kernel, and why should we artificially limit our user base to exclude such users?
So I mostly agree with Sven on this one, but I don't think it's worth a lot of emotion. There are plenty of bigger issues regarding OldWorld PowerMacs that need looking into. Until recently, just getting Etch to boot *at-all* on OldWorld was one of them!
Rick