Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:13:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> > > kernel structure?
> >
> > Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the
> > sarge release? Since the 2.4 series has stabilized, it might be time
> > to put thoughts into just telling people that 2.4 is Good And Right.
>
> Tongue-in-cheek notwithstanding, I think this might make upgrades from
> woody to sarge more complicated than they need to be for a lot of
> people; we've only just dropped 2.0 support, and since 2.2 was the
> default on new i386 installs a large number of people will be left in
> the position where they have to upgrade the kernel before doing the
> distribution upgrade.
>
> I'd like to see sarge releasing quickly enough that dropping 2.2 support
> after that wouldn't be too much of a hardship, of course ...
I don't think we have to drop support for 2.2. It's not as if 2.2.x
can't run reliably with current woody, sarge or sid. It's just that some
functionality has surpassed 2.2.x.
Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
work correctly anyway?
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: