Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:29:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * dann frazier (dannf@dannf.org) [060526 15:14]:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:24:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > > need some further discussion among the m68k folks... does this also mean
> > > > that an etch installation will require a 2.6 kernel to run on the machine?
> > > > Some of the m68k buildds (most macs) are still running 2.2.25, the two Atari
> > > > Falcons run 2.4.
> > >
> > > The long term aim is indeed to release etch with only 2.6 kernels, which means
> > > no 2.4 but also no 2.2 kernel.
> > >
> > > Now, the removal of the 2.2 kernel should follow the same roadmap as what was
> > > discussed for the 2.4 kernels, and i suppose that for m68k purpose, you can
> > > substitute '2.4' with '2.2 or 2.4' in all those emails.
> >
> > There has been no DSA for a 2.2 kernel to date in the lifetime of
> > woody/sarge (counting on my recollection here, I'm currently offline),
> > so I can't see how we can continue shipping it unless someone steps up
> > to handle this. Of course, you could always request insecure status
> > from the release team (with proper release notes, etc).
>
> As far as I know, 2.2 isn't even supported by glibc any more.
I've cc'd the glibc list for confirmation.
> If that is
> the case, we definitly shouldn't ship with 2.2. Also, anyone is free to
> open a kernel-2-2.debian.net repository
kernel.debian.net has a repository that could be used for stuff like
this.
--
dann frazier
Reply to: