Re: 2.2.x bug...
On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 03:11:06PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Christian Meder <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:37:46AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > The SPARC slink release is 2.2.1, so it is affected.
> > That's not completely correct. The Sparc slink release has got 2.0.35
> > _and_ 2.2.1. 2.2.1 was mostly added as an alternative kernel and to
> > allow installation on UltraSparcs (which weren't officially supported
> > in Sparc slink; they just happen to work pretty well with slink and
> > Steve Dunham and Eric Delaunay put in some extra last minute work to
> > add support for Ultrasparcs to the Sparc slink boot floppies).
> I don't know on what basis you say Sun4u is not a first-tier supported
> platform. There certainly is nothing I've ever read on debian-sparc
> or the boot-floppies list, or read on the web pages, to suggest that.
I know that sun4u works very well and I know that the docs tell us that
sun4u is a first-tier supported platform. The point is: it was pure luck
that the sun4u support could be added to slink. All pieces just fell in
their places in time. When we (Eric Delaunay, Steve Dunham and I)
decided that we'd take the risk to freeze slink for Sparc (around Oct/Nov 98)
sun4u was just a side issue. Our real problems were: a glibc2.1 prerelease
which was improving but still had some rough edges, tons of packages which
needed glibc2.1 source patches, adding the Sparc patches to the X packages,
a 2.0.35 sparc kernel patch package (no 2.2.x on the horizon back then),
boot floppies which needed netboot support, etc.
Christian Meder, email: email@example.com
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)