Re: Should we drop non-SMP ia64 kernel images?
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:39 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 September 2005 10:18 am, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > non-SMP kernels may be useful for a number of specialized uses. Think
> > > > about kexec, test situations, low memory situations and running a
> > > > kernel in a virtualized environment.
> > >
> > > Should Debian be burdened with supplying kernels for these situations?
> > > Or should Debian provide kernels that perform acceptably well for 99% of
> > > their users?
> > Well, upstream needs to make kernels configured for UP work
> I think everybody agrees with this. It's just that upstream
> is *not* keeping UP working, and it's not really Dann's job to
> do it (though he has done quite a bit of work in that area).
To be clear, my reasoning for this discussion is to determine if there
is any value to providing them. If I'm convinced that there is
significant value to Debian users, I'm willing to continue working w/
upstream on UP issues. But, I don't want to spend 90% of my maintenance
time on something few users care about sometimes.