Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>
> > > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> > > 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
> > Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to mention
> > that fact. No 2.6, though, but that's not a problem right now. Might
> > become a problem for etch, I agree.
> > m68k folks, is there anything in the works for 2.6 ?
>
> To my knowledge there are even buildds running 2.6 on m68k.
> Even more:
> I took just another piece of m68k hardware, which Debian bought for the m68k
> port, to Roman Zippel on March, 3rd in order to let him write the needed
> drivers for that accelerator card. So, there will even be new drivers for
> m68k soon that will be made for 2.6 kernel series, I think.
>
> With the new proposal of de facto dropping m68k support, I'm this -><- close
> to recommend to Roman, that he better should invest his time into other
> projects, because Debian wouldn't appreciate his work to bring up another
> public m68k machine.
Notice that m68k doesn't actively participate in the kernel-team, and package
their stuff in their own corner though, which may be the reason for this
perceived problem.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: