Re: removing /etc/hotplug.d/ support
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:59:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:01:10AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 24, martin f krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now.
> > > Yeah. Horrible. Will udev become an editor and MTA too, maybe after
> > > etch?
> > No. But since it had to deal with most events, applying the same process
> > to the others was a natural extension of its design.
> > > > 2.4 kernels will not be supported in etch,
> > > I don't think this is an authoritative statement. At the moment,
> > > some architectures do not work with 2.6.
> > It's an educated guess. I consulted some of the interested maintainers
> > and followed the debian-kernel list, and so far there is no sign that
> > 2.4 will be supported (and if 2.6 will not be fixed on architectures
> > like sparc32, too bad for them).
> Although being able to ship just one kernel for all our ports in etch is
> everyone's first choice, the release team has not made any decision yet to
> exclude 2.4 kernels from etch if they're needed for a particular arch or
> subarch. Given that the kernel team is still rolling new 2.4 updates in
> unstable, and d-i still defaults to 2.4 on a majority of archs, I think it
> is premature to drop hotplug support for 2.4 at this point.
> It would certainly be a big help to the release team in making this decision
> if the kernel team would begin to drop 2.4 kernels as early as possible in
> the release cycle for those architectures where they believe they are no
> longer needed. Together with working out which ports are actually viable
> for etch under the new requirements (which of course first requires fully
> specifying those requirements), we should be able to get a clear picture in
> a couple of months of just what the kernel requirements are for etch.
There are some architectures where 2.4 is required, its
because of these that it seems that we are stuck with 2.4 for Etch.
alpha (installer), m68k (2.6 only works on amiga), s390 (installer),
There are some architectures where 2.4 has been abandonded uptream,
and these are being removed from the arcive
powerpc (ok, thats one, not some)
There are some architectures, like i386, which are pretty well
maintained upstream for 2.4, so it seems reasonable to keep them,
as we need 2.4 because of the first group, and its not a whole lot of
extra effort - if it is lets get rid of them. I'm aware of the udev
issue, I'm happy for that to be a catalyst for canning 2.4 where
possible. But what about the arches that need 2.4. Does that mean
we have to backport udev anyway?
I might add, that right now I'm doing the bulk of 2.4 maintenance,
and my current plan is to just keep patching 2.4.27, the sarge kernel,
and eventually, once all the current teething problems are ironed
out with the single-source 2.6 package, use that framework to
produce a new 2.4.X, probably .35 or so by then.
Also, I only have powerpc (not supported by 2.4) and i386 hardware
at my disposal, so it would be very convenient for me to keep
2.4.27 around for i386. Though I'm not really concerend about
being able to install 2.4.27, just have something to test, so
I guess that doesn't have to be a package that appears in Debian.
But if I'm building the things, it seems like it might as well.
Finally, the lists above are probably incomplete, please jump
in with additional information if you have it.