Bug#339827: linuxthreads crashes when using user stacks
At Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:29:43 -0500,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:38:47AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:22:22 -0500,
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek agreed. I am planning to bump the requirement up from
> > > 2.2.whatever to 2.4.0 for i486 and powerpc; i486 in order to enable
> > > floating stacks, and powerpc because we've been getting bug reports
> > > that indicate that static binaries are already broken there under 2.2,
> > > and no one wants to debug it.
> > >
> > > Any objections before I do this?
> >
> > Is it already done? If it's pended, I'll ask it to
> > debian-devel@lists. The security support for 2.2 series was finished,
> > we have no reason to support 2.2 kernel.
>
> No, it isn't :-( I didn't get around to it; if you could, that would
> be great.
Okay, I see. It's time to transit.
> > Note that the current status of the support kernel versions are:
> >
> > amd64 2.6.0
> > i386(i686) 2.6.0
> > i386(amd64) 2.6.0
> > *(nptl) 2.6.0
> > ppc64 2.6.0
> > s390x 2.4.1
> > sparc64 2.4.18
> > sparcv9 2.4.18
> > sparcv9b 2.4.18
> >
> > others 2.2.0
> >
> > They'll be changed to:
> >
> > i386(i486) 2.4.1
> > powerpc 2.4.1 (?)
> >
> > BTW, note that some architectures like m68k could not compile the
> > recent glibc with kernel 2.4.x or 2.6.x.
>
> Might want to check with the s390x and sparc porters, too. If 2.4 is
> dead for those architectures, we don't need to carry it around. ARM
> could probably use a bump, but I'm not sure to what.
Thanks for your comments. I'll consider about such architectures.
-- gotom
Reply to: