[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#231538: *sigh*

At Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:09:35 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> | What does sid have to do with woody?
> The problem is that of providing an upgrade path from woody to sarge on
> real i386 machines.  Glibc (and everything else in userland) in
> sarge/sid requires a kernel with the i486 emulation patch for such
> machines.  There is no such kernel in woody.  The kernels in sarge/sid
> cannot be installed on a woody system because they require newer
> modutils and initrd-tools, which require new glibc.
> The best solution anyone has come up with is to provide a kernel in
> woody which can be installed in woody on real i386 machines, and which
> includes the i486 emulation patch.  Once that is installed, the upgrade
> to sarge can then be performed.
> If you have a better solution, be sure to suggest it, but I don't think
> there is one.  (Recall that the requirement of the 486 emulation patch
> was necessary to deal with a major, difficult ABI problem for C++.)
> If you have specific preferences for the form this updated kernel will
> take (perhaps you'd prefer a patched version of 2.4.19?), hash it out
> with Herbert.  I don't particularly care what form it takes, as long as
> there's a way to upgrade a real i386 from woody to sarge without going
> outside Debian.
> This must be solved before sarge can be released, given the consensus
> that i386 support was not going to be dropped; and there is no known way
> to solve it within sid/sarge.  It could be done by setting up a special
> page on www.debian.org for downloading the patched kernel packages, and
> pointing all real i386 users to that in the Sarge release notes; but it
> seems much more sensible to put the patched kernel release in a point
> update of woody, and point the real i386 users to *that* in the Sarge
> release notes.
> Hope this helps explain the problem, why it's 'critical', and why it has
> something to do with woody.

Thanks Nathanael, exactly.

So, don't we have plan to put newer kernel 2.4.24 into woody?  Then I
simply put the description which I described the previous mail:

> So if "woody" can't have 2.4.24, then should we add message to display
> "you need to install kernel 2.4.24 (it's available on the
> woody-proposed-updates)" with libc6.preinst?

-- gotom

Reply to: