Re: 2.4 & 2.6 kernels, should sarge be 2.6 only at least for powerpc ?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:01:34PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > > Well... That isn't really what I said ;) What I said is that I don't
> > > have time to actively maintain the PowerMac support in 2.4, that is make
> > > it evolve & support newer machines. That doesn't mean that PPC will be
> > > going away from 2.4 ;)
> >
> > I think the exact quote was that you are not going to support G5 on 2.4
> > forever. But anyway, a move to 2.6 should be salutable if all the
> > linuxppc developers have much more interest for 2.6 trhan 2.4, and we
> > will be saddled with this for the next 2 years probably, so ...
>
> Oh yes, G5 is another matter, it's not supported at all in 2.4 ;) The
> fact that there is a very minimal support in 2.4 was done to help some
> distro who had 2.4-only installers at one point, and definitely not meant
> to be used after the install stage.
Yep, so if we move for G5, then we should as well move for the rest of
them, and drop apus by the way.
> Also, I don't intend to support the 32 bits kernel on them for long neither,
> G5s should really run a 64 bits kernel even with a 32 bits userland.
This will probably not be for sarge though, altough once i get some time
again, i need to look into this again. At least a 64bit toolchain should
be easily obtainable now.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: