Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:52:07AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > > It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
> > > both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
> > > about it in my books.
> > Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
> Sort of. 2.4 kernels have generally been patched by most
> distributions to the point where they are hardly recognizeable. Both
> Red Hat and SuSE have backported _so_ many 2.5/2.6 features into their
> "2.4 kernel" that you generally can't boot a kernel.org 2.4 kernel on
> their systems. Since all of the distributions have forked so far from
> the mainstream kernel, and most of the kernel developers are focusing
> on 2.6, most 2.4 maintenance takes place within the various
> distributions. It's therefore up to the Debian kernel team whether
> they feel like supporting 2.4 or not.
Thanks for your remarks. I think the current sentiment of the kernel
team is that we'd rather not if we don't have to. With your comments in
mind, this probably boils down to how many architectures need it, by
which I mean, how many architecures can't use 2.6. And how solid 2.6 is.
My personal feeling - as the person most likely to maintain a 2.4 kernel -
is that in the case of the former, its probably too few to warant
supporting 2.4 across the board. And in the case of the latter, by the
time etch comes out, 2.6 will have progressed and along the way should
become more and more solid. So in all respects it would seem better to
focus on 2.6.