On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:01:54PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I see only one way to deal with that: drop security support for m68k. :-P
>
> That's not entirely unreasonable. Why should the m68k folks expect the
> security team to maintan 2.2 when they are not willing to put in the
> effort needd to make 2.6 run on their arch?
What makes you think that is true?
It is being done, and stable 2.6 on m68k is getting closer (the first
reports of successful boots of 2.6 on m68k amiga have been provided by
the kernel hackers, but as of yet only on their systems), but it's just
not there yet. 2.6 has been out for just half a year, give us a break;
there are other architectures that are less far than this.
Re: 2.2 support: that's only required for mac, because they have long
had a separate CVS repository in which they worked. Of course, they
regularly synced with the "main" m68k repository, but it was in some
ways an nonefficient way to work. This is now history; the mac68k
hackers now work with the same CVS repository as the other m68k kernel
people do, and are working on getting 2.6 to work (they're getting quite
close at that too, albeit not as far as the amiga folks have). They've
chosen to skip 2.4 entirely which is, I think, a reasonable choice.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature